Chapter VII: Socialists, Christ, and the Church

IN every question much depends on the point of view adopted by the inquirer. It is a trite saying that the Catholic Church and her teaching look very different to the Catholic who regards them from the inside of the Church, and to the non-Catholic who regards them from the outside. The Catholic is satisfied that the Gospel preached to him by the Church is the Gospel preached by Jesus Christ. He knows by experience that it is a practical and workable system, and, believing what he does about Jesus Christ, he is sure that it would be rank blasphemy to believe that Jesus Christ preached anything that was not practical and workable.

On the other hand, many outside the Church, and Socialists especially, affect to regard Jesus Christ as a dreamer. His Gospel was above all a revolution in economic theory. He was, they say, a Communist who condemned private property and strove not only to subjugate wealth but to annihilate it. He taught that all attachment to wealth was sinful, and that poverty, actual poverty, was a necessary condition of admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven. He condemned riches in themselves. In all this He was followed by His Apostles and by the Fathers of the early Church. The first Christian Churches were societies of communists. It was only when Christianity became the fashionable religion of the Roman Empire that the Church accommodated her doctrine to the requirements of the altered circumstances. This had already been done for the great trading centre of Egypt by Clement of Alexandria. This Father, who lived at the end of the second century, wrote a little book on " Who that is rich shall be saved?" With Alexandrine subtlety he succeeded in accommodating the Gospel of Christ concerning wealth to the needs of a rich trading community of Christians. His doctrine was adopted by the mediaeval and modern Christian Church. So, in effect, said Signor Nitti some years ago, and the view has been substantially adopted by Mr. Butterworth in his dainty little book on Clement of Alexandria, recently issued. The charge that the Catholic Church has changed the Gospel of Christ has, of course, frequently been made before. After years of study Cardinal Newman satisfied himself that she had not changed but only developed it. That is true of other doctrines and of the doctrine on poverty and wealth. One great obstacle which prevents non-Catholics from seeing the truth is their rejection of counsels in the Gospel. The Protestant theory of Gospel morality is that all good is of precept, none is merely recommended and of counsel only. This theory prevents them and those who follow them from seeing the point in the incident between Christ and the rich young man. The text is classical as bearing on the question at issue. The writers with whom I am dealing see in it a clear proof that Christ taught that the renunciation of wealth is a necessary condition for admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven, and that a rich man cannot be saved. Clement of Alexandria, and Catholic exegetes generally, show that it proves nothing of the sort.

The rich young man asked what he had to do to have everlasting life. " If thou wouldst have everlasting life, keep the Commandments," was the answer. " Which Commandments?" again asked the young man. " The Ten Commandments of the Decalogue," answered the Master. "All those I have kept from my youth. What is yet wanting to me?" said the young man. Jesus looked upon him with a look of approbation and love, and then He said: " If thou wouldst be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give it to the poor." He did not absolutely command him to sell what he had; He only bade him do it if he desired to do something more than what was commanded and strictly necessary to gain everlasting life. Moreover, it should be noted that Jesus did not command him to put the proceeds of the sale into the common fund. He told him to give them to the poor. Our Lord was no Communist. But, it is argued, the Gospel narrative goes on to say that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Here the Socialist stops, but we should go on to the end of the narrative.

The disciples wondered very much, we are told, at hearing this proverb, which seemed to make salvation impossible for the rich, and they asked Him: "Who, then, can be saved?" "With men," said Our Lord, "this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Even the rich man may be saved by the grace of God. The same conclusion follows from the story of the rich Zaccheus, and it is not contradicted by the parable of Dives and Lazarus if no part of the Gospel narrative is omitted, as is done by Signor Nitti. St. Paul instructed his disciple Timothy how to deal with the rich, but he did not tell him to compel them to renounce their wealth. The communism of the Church of Jerusalem was local and not obligatory, as is shown by what St. Peter said to Ananias and Sapphira. What Socialists assert about the early Church Fathers is refuted by examining their whole teaching about wealth. Dr. J. Ryan's little book, " Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers," will enable the English reader to do this at small trouble and expense to himself. L. Garriguet's little book on " The Social Value of the Gospel" is also well worth reading.