Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/221

 COMMUNISM

179

COMMUNISM

that Communion under one kind involves per se any loss or curtailment of sacramental grace. St. Thomas (III, Q. l.xxx, a. 12, ad 3) and St. Bonaventure (In Sent. IV, XI, punct. ii, a. 1, q. 2) may fairly be claimed for this view, which is defended by Cajetan (In III, q. Ixxx, a. 12, II), Dominicus Soto (In Sent. IV, XII, q. i, a. 12), Bellarmine (De Sac. Euch., IV, 33), Suarez (In III, q. Ixxix, a. 8, disp. Ixiii, VI, S, sq.), Sylvius (In III, q. Ixxx, a. 12, q. 2), Gonet (De Sac. Euch., disp. viii, a. 4, n. 69), and a host of later writers. While admitting that the sacraments cause what they signify, these theologians deny that the extent of their causality is dependent on the mode or degree of per- fection m which this signification is realized, or that there is any ground for distinguishing a twofold causality in the Eucharist depending on tlie twofold manner of reception. There is all the more reason for denying this in the case of the Holy Eucharist, since both the Body and Blood of Christ are really present, and the complete refection intended by Christ is really received, under either species alone; and since, more- over, in the production of whatever grace is given, in additionto the grace of mere presence, the more impor- tant cause is Christ Himself in His sacred humanity per- sonally present in the recipient. Must we hold that Christ limited the grace-giving efficacy of His invis- ible presence so as to make it dependent on the acci- dental mode in which that presence is visibly sj-m- bolized rather than on the presence itself? Or that He curtailed the spiritually nutritive effects of what is de facto complete as an aliment and, as such, is suffi- ciently symbolized by either species, merely because the physical analogy in the manner of reception is not reproduced as literally and completely as it might be? Even in the natural order we do not always insist on the distinction between eating and drinking in refer- ence to our bodily refection, and in the spiritual and supernatural sphere, where there is question of the soul's refection by Divine grace, it is surely an over- straining of the law of sacramental symbolism to urge that distinction as insistently as do theologians of the first opinion. Such briefly is the line of argument by which the common opinion is supported. It only re- mains to add that in this opinion the reception of the chalice may augment, per accidens, the grace of the sacrament, by securing a longer continuance of the species and thereby of the Real Presence, and by helping to prolong or renew the fervent dispositions of the recipient.

Among, and in addition to, the authore and works mentioned in the course of this article, the following are particularly note- worthy: Hedley, The Holy Eucharist (in the Westminster Library series, London, 1907), ch. vi, p. 84 sq.; Dalg.urns, The Holv Communion (DubUn. 1861). vi; St. Thomas, Sum. Theol. III. Q. Ixxx. a. 12; St. Bonaventcee, In Sent. IV, XI, punct. ii, a. 1, q. ii (Quaracchi); Cajetax, In III, Q. Ixxx. a. 12, also De Comm. sub utraque specie, tr. XII inter opuscuta; Bellarmine, De Sacram. Euch., IV, 30 sq.; Bona, Rer. Liturg., II, xvii-xx; Bossuet, Traite de la Comm. sou.t les deux psprces: La tradition drfendue sur la maiticre de la Comm. sous une espece; Benedictt XIV. De Sacrosancio Miss(e. Sacrificio, II, c. xxii, n. 18, sq.; Chardon, Histoire du Sacrement de I'Eu- charittie in Migne, Theol. Cursus Complctus, XX: Probst, Sacramente und Sacramcntalicn in den drci erstcn ,Iahrhunderten (Tubingen, 1872); Corblet, Histoire du Sacrement de I'Eu- charistie (Paris, 1885); Gasparri, Tractalus Canonicus de SS. Euchari.itia (Paris, 1897), I: Hecser in Kirchenlex., Ill, 723 sqq.; DcBLANCHY in Diet, de theol. cath.. III. ,'>.^2 sqq.

P. J. Toner.

Communism (Lat. communis). — In its more general signification communism refers to any social system in which all property, or at least all productive prop- erty, is owned by the group, or community, instead of by individuals. Thus understood it comprises com- munistic anarchism, socialism, and communism in the strict sense. Communistic anarchism (as distin- guished from the philosophic variety) would abolish not only private property, but political government. Socialism means the collective ownership and man- agement not of all property, but only of the material agencies of production. Communism in the strict sense

demands that both production-goods, such as land, railways, and factories, and consumption-goods, such as dwellings, furniture, food, and clothing, should be the property of the whole community. Previous to the middle of the nineteenth century the term was used in its more general sense, even by socialists. Marx and Engels called the celebrated document in which they gave to socialism its first "scientific" ex- pression, the "Communist Manifesto". They could scarcely do otherwise, since the word Socialism was used for the first time in the year 1833, in England. Before long, however, most of the followers of the new movement preferred to call their economic creed Socialism and themselves Socialists. To-day no so- cialist who believes that individuals should be allowed to retain ownership of consumption-goods would class himself as a communist. Hence the word is at pres- ent pretty generally employed in the narrower sense. Its use to designate merely common ownership of capital is for the most part confined to the unin- formed, and to those who seek to injure socialism by giving it a bad name.

Communism in the strict sense is also distinguished from socialism by the fact that it usually connotes a greater degree of common life. In the words of the Rev. W. D. P. Bliss, "socialism puts its emphasis on common productio7i and dixtribution; communism, on life in common" ("Handbook of Socialism", p. 12). Communism aims, therefore, at a greater measure of equality than socialism. It would obtain more uni- formity in the matter of marriage, education, food, clothing, dwellings, and the general life of the com- munity. Hence the various attempts that have been made by small groups of persons living a common life to establish common ownership of industry and com- mon enjoyment of its products, have generally been described as experiments in communism. In fact socialism, in its proper sense of ownership and opera- tion of capital-instruments by the entire democratic State, has never been tried anyivherc. This calls to mind the further distinction that communism, even as a present-day ideal, implies the organization of in- dustry and life by small federated communities, rather than by a centralized State. William Morris thus distinguishes them, and hopes that socialism will finally develop into communism ("Modern Social- ism", edited by R. C. K. Ensor, p. 88). Combining all these notes into a formal definition, we might say that complete communism means the common owner- ship of both industry and its products by small fed- erated communities, living a common life.

Hlstory. — The earliest operation of the commu- nistic principle of which we have any record, took place in Crete about 1.300 B. c. All the citizens were educated by the State in a uniform way, and all ate at the public tables. According to tradition, it was this experiment that moved Lycurgus to set up his celebrated regime in Sparta. Under his rule, Plu- tarch informs us, there was a common system of edu- cation, g^minastics, and military training for all the youth of lioth sexes. Public meals and public sleep- ing apartments were provided for all the citizens. The land was redistributed so that all had equal shares. .Although marriage existed, it was modified by a certain degree of promiscuity in the interest of race-culture. The principles of equality and common life were also enforced in many other matters. As Plutarch says, "no man was at liberty to live as he pleased, the city being like one great camp where all had their stated allowance". In several other re- spects, however, the regime of Lycurgus fell short of normal communism: though the land was equally distributed it was privately owned; the political sys- tem was not a democracy but a limited monarchy, and later an oligarchy; and the privileges of citizen- ship and equality were not enjoyed by the entire population. The Helots, who performed all the dis-