Communism and Christian Monasticism

[civfanatic]

Recently, I was reading The Rule of St. Benedict, and I came across some very interesting passages. Highlighting is done by me:

The strict opposition to private ownership of goods and the principle of distribution to each according to their needs both strike me as highly communistic. Does anyone know if such principles were actually followed in practice? Would it be appropriate to label such Christian monasteries, at least in principle, as communist? Looking forward to the thoughts of other members on this.

 

[Henry IX]

The concepts of common ownership and distribution by need are both very old. However, communism includes neither as a core tenant. Marxist communism is about communal ownership of the means of production so all can reap the benefits of surpluses produced by labour. The private ownerships of goods is fine - the ownership of another's labour and the products of that labour are not.

So, in short no - Marxist communism is fairly distinct from monasticism in terms of ownership of goods. In a Marxist society the worker owns the products of his labour (at least in principal) whilst in a monastery the monastery owns the good produced by the labour of a monk.

 

[Ming]

Christian Communism goes back farther of course.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Recently, I was reading The Rule of St. Benedict, and I came across some very interesting passages. Highlighting is done by me:

....

The strict opposition to private ownership of goods and the principle of distribution to each according to their needs both strike me as highly communistic. Does anyone know if such principles were actually followed in practice? Would it be appropriate to label such Christian monasteries, at least in principle, as communist? Looking forward to the thoughts of other members on this.

Only by superficial coincidence. And of opposite intention. After all, in proper (Marxian) communism, the whole point of distribution is to liberate the individual from compulsion, and give him the freedom to do as he likes. That is the exact opposite intention in monasticism. Deprivation of personal property is a way of imposing discipline, and controlling individual behavior.

Monks, after all, is started as isolated hermits - about as non-communitarian as it gets. And they gave up property from the start. The point is to emulate the poverty of Christ (or Buddha, now that we're on it), and remove material wants and the temptation to sin. It is romanticizing and embracing poverty for spiritual reasons.

Now there do exist Christian utopian communities, who are more clearly communist, and have the overt intention of emulating the common property of the early Jerusalem Christians. But these have nothing to do with monasticism. Monks were all about turning their backs on the world and ignoring fellow men. They ended up forming communities unwillingly, out of practical necessity, not for any ideal. The impoverished hermit was still the ideal.

You see that more clearly in other monastic rules that competed with Benedictines, such as the Columbans and Basilians. The Benedictines were actually much more indulgent on personal possessions than the others. The Columban monk had nothing, spent most of his non-praying time in isolation from the rest, and used hair-shirts and flagellation as disciplinary measures.

The great innovation of Benedicts rule was the introduction of hard labor (rather than whipping) as the method of discipline. And this came with communal working, living, eating, sleeping and praying. Now all this focus on non-stop labor had the result of turning the monasteries into little productive enterprises. But their setup resembles slave plantations more than communist utopias. You don't distribute the fruits of labor among the monks, you get rid of it. The monk was still supposed to have nothing, and remain poor. Like the slave, he was supposed to labor as much as physically possible (all the non-praying time), and consume as little as humanly possible.

So if monasticism is communism, then it is a Pol Pot-style of communism.

 

[Imgran]

Seriously? Not all Communes are Communist.

 

[hitchens]

Recently, I was reading The Rule of St. Benedict, and I came across some very interesting passages. Highlighting is done by me:

The strict opposition to private ownership of goods and the principle of distribution to each according to their needs both strike me as highly communistic. Does anyone know if such principles were actually followed in practice? Would it be appropriate to label such Christian monasteries, at least in principle, as communist? Looking forward to the thoughts of other members on this.

The Benedictines started as a protest against the catholic church who were too focused on wordly wealth. Of course the Benedictine monasteries eventually became quite wealthy and they even had their own servants.

They didnt have communist views, they were following the ideals of christ.

 

[hitchens]

Monks, after all, is started as isolated hermits - about as non-communitarian as it gets.

Not quite true. The first order, the Benedictines, had monastaries that was an integrated part of society. You are thinking about the medicants, they cappeared a lot later in history.

 

[hitchens]

The great innovation of Benedicts rule was the introduction of hard labor (rather than whipping) as the method of discipline. .

I really should learn how to edit posts better, so I avoid all of this multi quoting.


This is wrong, Benedict was all about praying and good deeds and humilitas. You are thinking about the Cistercians Labor manuum.

edit: my bad. I mean as a difference of theory and practise.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Not quite true. The first order, the Benedictines, had monastaries that was an integrated part of society. You are thinking about the medicants, they cappeared a lot later in history.

Um, nope.

Look up St. Anthony of Egypt. There is an long eremetic monastic tradition preceding cenobitics by centuries. It was huge in the Egypt and the East, and was later imported to the west (notably Ireland). Benedict himself based his cenobitic rules on eastern Basilians (themselves a novelty relative to the long heremetic tradition). And Benedictines wouldn't be popular for centuries. Up until the 9th C., there were many more Columban monasteries in Europe (including Italy itself) than Benedictine. The latter only prevailed because of the Louis the Pious's edict of 817, imposing the Benedictine rule across all monasteries in Europe.

And you're wrong on your second point too. You got it the other way around. Benedictines are not part of society. They are cloistered. They do not live or interact with people outside their monastery, except on rarest occasions when it is inevitable. It is mendicant orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) that are engaged in society. Mendicants are not cloistered, they live among the people in cities and towns. They preach, minister, teach, interact, etc. with the world. That is their mission. Completely opposite to the Benedictine mission, which base on Augustine's precepts of withdrawal and shunning of the wicked world. The mendicants came into being precisely because monasteries were so isolated and aloof, and refused to engage society around it. Benedictines don't preach, teach, minister or interact with anybody, except each other inside the cloister. Except for occasional abbot conferences, you won't find Benedictine figures in any political or social histories. They have absented themselves. Mendicants, by contrast, are all over the place.

This is wrong, Benedict was all about praying and good deeds and humilitas. You are thinking about the Cistercians Labor manuum.

Um, Cistercians are Benedictines. Indeed, they are more Benedictine than the Benedictines. They came into existence because they thought existing Benedictines were getting lazy and letting things slide, not really following St. Benedict's rules so strictly anymore.

But the core, the sine qua non, of the Benedictine rules was labor. Which is why Louis imposed it. It was more useful to have monks copying books, clearing land and growing crops, rather than sitting in their cells contemplating God and whipping themselves.

 

[Eusebio]

The great innovation of Benedicts rule was the introduction of hard labor (rather than whipping) as the method of discipline. And this came with communal working, living, eating, sleeping and praying. Now all this focus on non-stop labor had the result of turning the monasteries into little productive enterprises. But their setup resembles slave plantations more than communist utopias. You don't distribute the fruits of labor among the monks, you get rid of it. The monk was still supposed to have nothing, and remain poor. Like the slave, he was supposed to labor as much as physically possible (all the non-praying time), and consume as little as humanly possible.

But you can't get rid of (productive) labour, the wealth it accrues has to go somewhere. Where did it go? Cui bono?

 

[Henry IX]

To the monastery. There are good reasons why many monasteries became so rich in the middle ages.

 

[The-Doc]

Abdul, you seem to be missing the point that rejection of Eastern hermitage was a major and stated point of Benedict's aims. Holiness was to be found in community, not isolation but contemporary society was deemed too wicked for this to work. He, and other western founders were somewhat disparaging of hermitage (esp. stylites).

I will quotemine the relevant passages when I get a chance.

And not being part of the community? Wtf Abdul, I thought you knew the medieval better than that. They provided shelter and wayhouses for pilgrims, they held and rented property, they were regularly employed for their craftsmanship and were the sponsors of fairs - those lynchpins of medieval commerce. And as a destination for either dead end or pious nobility/merchants they had even further reaching ties to society. Abbots were influential as advisors and negotiators, even up to royal courts (Bernard of Clairvaux!). Monks were often the only source of record keeping, and were called upon to arbitrate Not to mention the work in clearing land and proselytizing out into the countryside that had a profound effect on the Early Middle Ages.

Yeesh!

 

[Furion Matsuya]

whipping themselves.

I don't get why they whipped themselves unless they had actually sinned or done something unmonky/christian or whatever.

Faith can be bloody stupid, we all are guilty of sin because of the actions of Adam and Eve!?. I still don't see why people believe that the Biblical deity is nice or kind or forgiving, he instead of just forgiving everyone causes his own son to die a horrible death when any decent person would have just forgiven.

Ehh sorry started into a tangent. I better keep that restricted to my Dawnverse for the Heliosian/Celestian stuff I write.

 

[The-Doc]

I got why they whipped themselves unless they had actually sinned or done something unmonky/christian or whatever.

Faith can be bloody stupid, we all are guilty of sin because of the actions of Adam and Eve!?. I still don't see why people look at that the believe that the Bibical deity is nice or kind or forgiving she instead of just forgiving everyone it causes it's own son to die a horrible death when any decent person would have just forgiven.

Ehh sorry started into a tangent. I better keep that restricted to my Dawnverse for the Heliosian/Celestian stuff I write.

A heightened conscience means a greater awareness of one's one culpability and guilt. It is no great accomplishment that the modern mindset has "freed" itself of most feelings of responsibility or personal failure. There is a great deal in the world, and in our own personal lives that should prompt us to wear hair shirts, rend our clothes and cry out to the heavens for mercy and justice.

Sinfulness is a condition natural to humans. I should think nothing is more apparent in life than the doctrine of original sin. Now the question is how to truly correct that. God's is to become one of us so that we can become like him. Not a bad deal like that. Can't think of another religion that has that on offer.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

A heightened conscience means a greater awareness of one's one culpability and guilt. It is no great accomplishment that the modern mindset has "freed" itself of most feelings of responsibility or personal failure. There is a great deal in the world, and in our own personal lives that should prompt us to wear hair shirts, rend our clothes and cry out to the heavens for mercy and justice.

Sinfulness is a condition natural to humans. I should think nothing is more apparent in life than the doctrine of original sin. Now the question is how to truly correct that. God's is to become one of us so that we can become like him. Not a bad deal like that. Can't think of another religion that has that on offer.

Original Sin posits that Humanity has a fallen, flawed and broken evil nature. I find the very assumption both incredibly self loathing and misanthropic as well as frankly offensive, right up there with been told Jesus died for my skins but I digress.

How is Sinfulness a condition natural to humans?, most of what's considered sins in the Bible is pretty minor or outright ridiculous by reasonably modern standard. We don't stone disobedient children and all that after all now.

 

[The-Doc]

Original Sin posits that Humanity has a fallen, flawed and broken evil nature. I find the very assumption both incredibly self loathing and misanthropic as well as frankly offensive, right up there with been told Jesus died for my skins but I digress.

How is Sinfulness a condition natural to humans?, most of what's considered sins in the Bible is pretty minor or outright ridiculous by reasonably modern standard. We don't stone disobedient children and all that after all now.

Original Sin is the counterpart to Original Grace. Which is to say the capacity and inclination towards the wicked, along with an original aspiration to what is good. That seems a fairly obvious fact about people.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Original Sin is the counterpart to Original Grace. Which is to say the capacity and inclination towards the wicked, along with an original aspiration to what is good. That seems a fairly obvious fact about people.

I've never heard of Original Grace.

What's a fairly obvious fact, that we are all capable of great good or evil ?

 

[The-Doc]

I've never heard of Original Grace.

What's a fairly obvious fact, that we are all capable of great good or evil ?

Yeah. That anyone can be a saint or sinner from one minute to the next. It's a constant battle and the odds are stacked on the side of what's wrong. Heaven is up, and gravity is against us. Just in your own life, think about what comes easier? In fact that is practically the definition of what is wrong; the easy and selfish choice.

Edit: Not to side track this wonderful discussion of monks. Been a while since I discussed this with an interested party!

 

[nerd]

Yeah. That anyone can be a saint or sinner from one minute to the next. It's a constant battle and the odds are stacked on the side of what's wrong. Heaven is up, and gravity is against us. Just in your own life, think about what comes easier? In fact that is practically the definition of what is wrong; the easy and selfish choice.

Edit: Not to side track this wonderful discussion of monks. Been a while since I discussed this with an interested party!

first time I've ever heard gravity being blamed for sin

 

[The-Doc]

first time I've ever heard gravity being blamed for sin

It goes deep. Galileo might've talked.