Exposing the synthesis : Roman Church-State Ecclesiastical economics is envy exalted

Exposing the synthesis :  Roman Church-State Ecclesiastical economics is envy exalted

Wednesday 30 September 2020

Article by Tarisai P Ziyambi

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s" Exodus 20:17.

It's unfortunate that here in Scotland, property ownership is based on government regulations which seem to have been borrowed from the "common good" dogma which is the Robin Hood mercinary spirit robbing the "rich" to feed the "poor".  "And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him" 2 Samuel 12: 1-4.

According to Daniel 11:14, the "Robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall". This prophecy is key to understand that the Leopard like beast does not change, it's always been a den of thieves and robbers and their economic thought is based on covetousness. The rise of pagan Rome and Papal Rome reveals that they are a Satanic power, a gigantic system of false religion that greatly exalts itself and  has always been at enmity with the children  of God in all ages but gladly, "they shall fall" also, at "The End". 

The primitive and erroneous dogmas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas sum up the economic thought of the Roman Church-State. The above mentioned economic thought which was "developed by the popes in their encyclicals and by Roman Church-State councils has been a contributor to, if not the only source of, several forms of anti-capitalist political and economic organisation during the long hegemony of the Roman Church-State. Among these forms are (1) feudalism and guild socialism in Europe during the middle ages (2) fascism in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, and Latin America in the twentieth century; (3) Nazism in Germany in the twentieth century (4) interventionism and the redistributive state in the West including the United States in the twentieth century; and (5) liberation theology in Latin America and Africa in the twentieth century.

To understand how the economic thought of the Roman Church-State spawned these anti-capitalist systems, we begin with Thomas Aquinas' discussion of private property. Private property is the central economic institution of civilized societies, and it is the Roman Church-State's rejection of private property that contributed to the establishment of several varieties of destructive anti-capitalism throughout the world" Robbins JW [Ecclesiastical Megalomania] (1999). 

"To understand Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of private property, we must first understand his view of the law. According to Thomas, there are four kinds of law. First, there is eternal law, which is God's plan for the universe and all its inhabitants. Thus it is part of the eternal law that rocks, for example, fall to the ground when dropped; and plants, for example, grow towards the light. Second, there is natural law. Thus man is by nature a social animal. When men speak to each other and live in societies, they are doing what is natural to them, just as rocks and plants do. Third there is positive law, which is customs, laws, and regulations made by rulers attempting to apply the natural law to individuals and societies. Finally, there is divine law, such as the Ten commandments.

Private property, according to Thomas Aquinas is neither part of natural law nor an absolute right, but an invitation of human reason. It is a creation of and regulated by positive law. Rather than private property being part of the natural law, the possession of all things in common is the natural law. Thomas wrote:"...'the possession of all things in common and universal freedom' are said to be of the natural law because, to wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life". The institution of private property, like slavery, is a positive, not a natural, institution, and therefore rightfully subject to human regulation. The "community of goods", wrote Thomas, 'is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own, but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belongs to positive law... Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason" ibid 30 & 31.

It is important to keep in mind that according to Roman Catholic economic thought, here represented by its greatest and only official philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, that communism (with a small "c")- what Thomas called the community of goods- is part of the natural law, and private property is part of the positive law. Private property is an 'addition to' natural law. Though private property is not contrary to the natural law, it is not itself natural, and it does not enjoy the same metaphysical or ethical status as the community of goods. While men cannot change the natural law- rather, they are required to conform to it, according to Roman Church-State thought- they can change positive law, and they may do so in whatever manner is expedient and moral.

" In cases of need, all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common"  Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, ii-ii, 7th article...ibid 32

"The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act. He who in obedience to God’s law refrains from indulging even a sinful desire for that which belongs to another will not be guilty of an act of wrong toward his fellow creatures" PP 309.5.

Naturally of a covetous disposition, Ahab, strengthened and sustained in wrongdoing by Jezebel, had followed the dictates of his evil heart until he was fully controlled by the spirit of selfishness. He could brook no refusal of his wishes; the things he desired he felt should by right be his. - PK 204.2

This dominant trait in Ahab, which influenced so disastrously the fortunes of the kingdom under his successors, is revealed in an incident which took place while Elijah was still a prophet in Israel. Hard by the palace of the king was a vineyard belonging to Naboth, a Jezreelite. Ahab set his heart on possessing this vineyard, and he proposed to buy it or else to give in exchange for it another piece of land. “Give me thy vineyard,” he said to Naboth, “that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.” - PK 204.3

Naboth valued his vineyard highly because it had belonged to his fathers, and he refused to part with it. “The Lord forbid it me,” he said to Ahab, “that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” According to the Levitical code no land could be transferred permanently by sale or exchange; every one of the children of Israel must “keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.” Numbers 36:7. PK 205.1

Naboth’s refusal made the selfish monarch ill. “Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him.... And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.” - PK 205.2

Jezebel soon learned the particulars, and, indignant that anyone should refuse the request of the king, she assured Ahab that he need no longer be sad. “Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel?” she said. “Arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” - PK 205.3

Ahab cared not by what means his wife might accomplish the desired object, and Jezebel immediately proceeded to carry out her wicked purpose. She wrote letters in the name of the king, sealed them with his signet, and sent them to the elders and nobles of the city where Naboth dwelt, saying: “Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people: and set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.” - PK 205.4

The command was obeyed. “The men of his city, even the elders and the nobles, ... did as Jezebel had ... written in the letters which she had sent unto them.” Then Jezebel went to the king and bade him arise and take the vineyard. And Ahab, heedless of the consequences, blindly followed her counsel and went down to take possession of the coveted property. - PK 206.1

The king was not allowed to enjoy unrebuked that which he had gained by fraud and bloodshed. “The word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?” And the Lord further instructed Elijah to pronounce upon Ahab a terrible judgment. - PK 206.2

To be continued...