An unlikely source of gratification
Against all odds, and based on class readings, I've actually come to like St. Ambrose. All I had known about him from the history of western philosophy was that he was one of the towering figures of the patristic age, a bishop with a flair for politics who turned the Catholic church into a force powerful enough to defy the emperor. Understandably, I didn't think that gave me much reason to like him.
But get this: Ambrose was an outright socialist. He declared that God's "natural law of association" was common property, that the blessings of the world were for everyone to enjoy. Moreover, he said that the instutution of private property was nothing more than institutionalized greed, and that anyone who amassed property was stealing from the bounty that should, by right of God's command, be able to be enjoyed by everyone. He absolutely loathed the wealthy, and held acquisitiveness to be a terrible disease of the soul. The only property to be held by the church was to be held in common for all: the money/tithes received were solely to be used for what we today would call social programs, such as feeding the hungry. He also stressed that while giving money to help the poor was nice, it was a far greater gift to donate your time and effort instead (i.e., actually help build someone a house, instead of simply donating money to an organization that builds houses).
All platforms I can get behind. I don't have my book of readings on me, so I'll post an actual quote from him later. When he's railing against the rich (in a writing about the story of Naboth's Vineyard), he sounds like Marx or Engels.
But get this: Ambrose was an outright socialist. He declared that God's "natural law of association" was common property, that the blessings of the world were for everyone to enjoy. Moreover, he said that the instutution of private property was nothing more than institutionalized greed, and that anyone who amassed property was stealing from the bounty that should, by right of God's command, be able to be enjoyed by everyone. He absolutely loathed the wealthy, and held acquisitiveness to be a terrible disease of the soul. The only property to be held by the church was to be held in common for all: the money/tithes received were solely to be used for what we today would call social programs, such as feeding the hungry. He also stressed that while giving money to help the poor was nice, it was a far greater gift to donate your time and effort instead (i.e., actually help build someone a house, instead of simply donating money to an organization that builds houses).
All platforms I can get behind. I don't have my book of readings on me, so I'll post an actual quote from him later. When he's railing against the rich (in a writing about the story of Naboth's Vineyard), he sounds like Marx or Engels.