Abuse of the Topic of Wealth by the Communist Regime: The Case of the Journal Charity

In its methodological part, the study first contributes to the current debate on the theological topics of the rich, wealth and pastoral care of the rich. It shows the basic methodological limitations a researcher may encounter while exploring these topics. In particular, it points out the problematic nature of the concept of historical overview in the context of current specialist discussions in the churchhistorical scholarly community. Subsequently, the study deals with the issue of abusing the topic of wealth by communist propaganda, of which the journal Charity (published from 1946 to 1951) became a vehicle in the early fifties. The paper shows the dark side of thinking about the rich and wealth: i.e., the abuse of this topic for political propaganda. The Communist Party viewed the Catholic Church as its ideological enemy. Soon after taking control of Czechoslovakia in February 1948 it banned most Catholic newspapers and magazines. Those which were still being published – the journal Charity among them – came under the control of people collaborating with the communists. Since 1949 the journal was used mainly for communist propaganda because in the interest of peaceful takeover and consolidation of power the communists wanted to get especially ordinary believers on their side. With the help of priests appointed to the governing body they used Biblical arguments and important figures in Christian history – including Jesus – to depict an ideological struggle of the East against the West, communism against capitalism – and also the poor against the rich. The topic of wealth became a powerful weapon of the ideological struggle in 1950.

The text is divided in two parts. The first part briefly and generally introduces some methodological limitations which researchers addressing the topics of wealth, the rich and pastoral care of the rich from the point of view of church history may encounter. It follows up on the above mentioned symposium and focuses on those points of departure, incentives, problems and possible solutions. It thus opens up space for the second part and contains among others an implicit explanation of the title of this paper. The second part of the paper deals with the very concrete issue of abuse of the topic of wealth in communist propaganda, of which in early 1950s the journal Charity became a vehicle.

Methodological reflections, or else How to present a complex church-historical topic in the context of theological discussion
When considering the relationship of theology and history, one can at present say that theologians in general accept the results of historical research and draw on it extensively. One of the tasks of history, which includes the field of church history, is to supply theologians with reliable resources and contexts for consideration (of course the relationship is to a certain extent reciprocal). 2 With respect to the readers of this journal, which is not exclusively churchhistorical in profile, and also as a result of the discussions at the above mentioned symposium conducted especially with theologians of various specializations, I would like to clarify why it is problematic to present an overview of the topic of the rich or wealth in history or even pastoral care of the rich in history in the sense of "from-till" and offer a less debatable form of presentation -as indicated by the title of this paper. 3 From a more general point of view one can say that if a researcher wants to tap the topics permeating the history of Christianity more deeply, she should not believe that by selecting views of the issue first from biblical texts, then from outstanding works of early Christian authors, from works of great mediaeval scholars, and from the enunciations of Councils and Popes up to the present the historical part of a theological issue will have been sufficiently covered. Placing the individual "enunciations" or "data" in chronological order without deeper historical context makes sense e.g. in denzinger's compilation, if we are following the pronouncements of the Magisterium. 4 But if we wanted to deal in such fashion with a historical topic -which e.g. pastoral care of the rich in church history certainly is (whereby I am not saying that it is not a theological topic as well) -we would obtain a rather narrow view, contributing little to deeper investigation of the topic. In other words such an overview would fail to convey an awareness of how profound differences there are between periods, centuries, places, doctrines and human generations. differences sometimes so deep, incommensurate and hardly inter-connectable that if one tried to link the individual views of various eras or persons in a clear, well-arranged line, one may (as often happens) mix the proverbial "apples and oranges". Therefore though it may seem that the common denominator determined by the theological topic is perfectly sufficient, there is the fundamental risk of fabricating a history that never has been. Thereby I am not saying that history should be reserved to historians aware of all contexts and relationships (which is in fact impossible), merely reminding of the fact that history, as every other scholarly discipline, has certain rules, procedures and methods that must be observed and respected.
Another point that must not be overlooked is the fact that a historian's research must be based not only on primary and secondary literature, but especially on historical sources, which she rigorously and critically expounds -among others thanks to broad knowledge of the time, author, context of origin, etc. It is also necessary to expound the primary and secondary literature in a similarly critical fashion. drawing conclusions from what one finds in secondary literature, or "composing" some comprehensive thematic lines from what is to be found in secondary literature -and even deducing (sic!) something from them -again almost certainly leads to distortions of the topic. The subchapters are called Church social work as the topic of historical research, A brief outline of the universal history of church social work and Key moments of church social work in our country. Although the topic is not identical with the topic of wealth and the rich in church history, it is fairly close in content -one can easily find in doležel's text the main points of how the church in its tradition and in works of its outstanding personalities viewed the rich and wealth in the course of time, i.e., since antiquity almost up to the present. It is not my intention to criticise the author, especially since the focus of his work was elsewhere, but his effort at a historical overview -contrived only on the basis of primary and especially secondary literature -illustrates that a non-historian should be careful not to set sail to unknown waters. But doležel did not confine himself to the historical overview, since in the partial summaries in subchapters 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, as well as in the overall summary of chapter 2 (pp. 199-203) he attempts to identify "models of charitable work". See Jakub Doležel, Teoretické ukotvení církevní sociální práce. I permit myself to claim that without correctly conducted historical investigation doležel's conclusions have little value. But in order not to do injustice to doležel I must say that in another of his publications he manifests awareness of the limitations of his research, as he has shown e.g. in Jakub Doležel, "Církevní sociální práce jako téma historického bádání", in: Spravedlnost a služba IV, ed. dita PAlAšČáKová, olomouc: CARITAS-voš sociální olomouc, 2010, pp. 63-76, where he introduced the view of charitable work in Willibald ladenbauer's Das sociale Wirken der katholischen Kirche in der Diöcese Budweis (Wien, 1899) to the academic public. one might object that a person of sufficient erudition aware of the above mentioned differences may be capable of elaborating an overview of a topic extending through church history honourably and in depth. Perhaps so, but in fact this has so far been achieved in only a few rare cases. 6 In this context I would like to refer to discussions which have been going on within the community of Czech church historians and theologians for already some years and follow up on similar debates abroad. The outcomes of these discussions are available to the public in the books Ecumenical Church Historiography (2003) 7 and Essays on the Nature of Church History (2012). 8 Both contain contributions by the historians Jiří hanuš and František X. halas, the theologians Pavel Ambros and Jaroslav vokoun, among others. overall one can say that the two books unambiguously show that attempting to contrive general overviews in church history is pointless. In other words: it is impossible to "make" a fully complex and exhaustive church history, because earlier or later the author will meet with difficulties that she will not be able to overcome herself. These result not only from the very complexity of knowing the individual epochs, but also from the fact that there are different historical schools or conceptions of history determined e.g. by the author's confessional (non-)affiliation. Analogically all these claims hold for the present problem of wealth, the rich or the narrower issue of pastoral care of the rich.
I believe that if ten church historians were to address the present topics, each of them would come up with a different elaboration. That would be due not only to different perceptions of some periods of church history as well as specific church-historical or history-theological topics resulting (as already mentioned) from the possible differences in confessional orientation or other ideological grounding, but also to the fact that none of them can be an expert in all the two thousand years of Christian history. of course, every church historian should be more then well-versed in it, as well as in general history, history of theology, history of culture, etc., but most are focused more narrowly on a specific part -just as a doctor knows well the whole human body and the foundations of all medical specializations, but for her degree she selects a particular specialization in which she then pursues perfection throughout her professional career. It would certainly turn out that the various epochs were covered in different depth: in some the researcher would be able to draw on previous results thanks to extensive interest in the period and prior historical and theological research, in others she will have to start practically from the scratch. In any case I believe that discussion of church historians dealing with the present topics should precede further interdisciplinary discussion or -if necessaryrun parallel to it.
There are situations in which it is worthwhile to do broad historical overviews even for such special topics as wealth and the rich in church history or pastoral care of the rich in history, e.g. when instructing students of Christian social and charitable work or those attending a course of practical theology. A general overview may also allow one to successfully indicate the number of cul-desacs in research work -which is not a bad way to facilitate first acquaintance with the topic or to design one's contribution at a symposium where there are colleagues from other theological or related fields or other listeners for whom a too narrowly focused contribution might not be welcome. In other words: although such method of addressing the issue is unsuitable for indepth treatment, in some situations it is necessary to acquire (or impart) general insight. I would therefore like to remind the readers that they may find basic general information on the topics not only in the already mentioned doležel's work, 9 but also in the works of primarily foreign authors, e.g. herbert haslinger, gottfried hammann and Markus lehner. 10 It is therefore obvious that if the reader were to look for information on wealth, the rich or pastoral care of the rich in the context of church history, she should consult works of authors dealing with history of pastoral care, as well as Christian social and charitable work. The topics are treated especially in connection with discussion of poverty and the poor -the topics are inseparable and closely interconnected.
The above considerations allow us to draw a conclusion: It is better if the author addresses -though in a partial manner and from the limited point of view of her specializationa less extensive topic, which she more precisely defines in terms of time, location, etc., then if she strives to contrive a general overview, which for fundamental reasons can never be fully general or exhaustive. Of course, addressing a partial issue also has its rules and pitfalls. The researcher must be aware of the limits determined by her own person as well as the very topic she intends to address -and openly acknowledge them to the reader. Such treatment of the topic may then become a serious contribution to further discussion. This is how the present study should be perceived.

Abuse of the topic of wealth in the journal Charity
The Catholic Church as an ideological enemy of the Communist Party The gradual taking over of power by communists in post-war Czechoslovakia has already been covered quite extensively. nonetheless, the topic has by far not been exhausted, whether as to content or as to the necessity of constant reminder -especially to members of the youngest generation who perceive the period as very distant and can hardly imagine the difficult situation of those whose religious or political orientation challenged the rising totalitarian regime. The fact that the communists took power gradually -beginning with the successful elections in 1946, through the February coup in 1948, to the subsequent strengthening of positions in the previously democratic state accompanied by ever more severe persecution of opponents -must incessantly be repeated.
It is well known that the Communist Party considered the Catholic Church, in number the most important representative of Christian communities in Czechoslovakia at the time, to be one of its main ideological enemies. It is therefore no wonder that especially after February 1948 the Catholic Church came under ever greater pressure, part of which were also direct and indirect attacks by state power, as part of the above mentioned process of strengthening positions and further taking over of power. A major role was played by the fight to gain control of institutions operated by the Catholic Church. By means of these the state power sought to win over some Catholics. An ideal vehicle of this intention appeared to be selected "Catholic" newspapers, journals and other press items, which the communists gained control of -having first banned publication of the truly Catholic ones. Partial facts related to this have 9 doležel provides an up-to-date bibliography of Czech and foreign authors close to the topic. See Jakub Doležel, Teoretické ukotvení církevní sociální práce.  The journal Charity in 1946 -1951 One such authorized journal was Charity. Since the transformations of the journal are described in detail by another contemporary study, 15 I will only present a brief summary: Charity was published since 1946, at first as a biweekly subtitled journal for social and health work. It was published by the Catholic Charity. 16 In the first two years of its existence it was a Catholic journal in ideology and content, acquainting its readers with the social and charitable activities of the Changes in the leadership of the Catholic Charity affected the journal of the same name, published -as said above -by this institution. Although in 1948 it retained political neutrality as far as content was concerned, i.e., it discussed topics corresponding to its profile, the freedom did not last long: at the beginning of January 1949 publishing all Roman Catholic journals was terminated except the local Polish W obranu pravdy and official bulletins of the individual dioceses -Acta curiae, the Catholic Weekly and the journal Charity. 21 It was to be published in thirty thousand copies as a weekly 22 devoted to social care as well as religious and church life. The editor-in-chief was to be Josef František Fiala. 23 In other words the journal Charity was to become a powerful weapon of the Communist Party in the above mentioned fight for the loyalty of the Catholic public. 24 Since then the pages of the journal came to be covered with proletarian and so-called peace issues, highlighting the role of the Soviet Union as liberator and warrant of peace. The writers took pains to show the similarity between communist ideals and the teaching of Jesus. As changes in state church policy occurred in 1949, 25 the contents of the journal changed, it was being more intensively used for communist propaganda. At the turn of 1949 and 1950 last changes in the editorial board took place, it came under the leadership of determined communists -and the contents of the journal changed even more. While up to that time church and charitable topics were predominant in the journal, only some articles were more communist than social-Christian in content and communist propaganda was to be found "between lines", now the journal became an unambiguous vehicle of communism. 26 This reflected the church-political reality in communist Czechoslovakia in those years, rightly considered the toughest. 27 In 1951 -i.e., in the last year of publication -the journal stood fully in service of the regime: the main topic was no longer assisting others but peace, endangered by Western capitalists, the articles are full of admiration for the Soviet Union, Stalin, the Communist Party and gottwald. The decision to terminate its publication must be viewed in the context of state interventions against the Catholic Church in the previous three years. 28 The Catholic Charity which published the journal as an institution became more or less a mere "union organization" for loyal representatives of the Catholic Church. It provided for holidays of clergy and engaged in production and sale of devotional articles. Places of internment of bothersome clergy also existed under the label of Catholic Charity. 29 The topic of wealth in the journal and its abuse In the pre-February issues of the journal Charity, and up until the state took control of Catholic Charity in April 1948, there is no explicit talk of wealth or the rich, but it is evident that the

2013
to inspire those who could help. The journal calls on all people of good will to join in the effort, it views charitable work as the common task of all -especially the faithful. It in no way juxtaposes the rich and the poor. Quite on the contrary, almost all issues highlight the exemplar practice of those who have helped as well as those who are grateful for the help. One could say that "rich" is not only one who has money, but also one who devotes his abilities and time to a good cause. In this sense the journal can definitely be viewed as specific means of pastoral care of the rich, i.e., those who help people who have not been as lucky in life.
It was similar in the second half of 1948 and in 1949: the topic of wealth is virtually not present, the journal engaged in the topics and changed in the fashion described above -i.e., Charity was not serving its original purpose anymore and was becoming a vehicle of communist propaganda.
only in 1950, i.e., after radical changes in the editorial board, did wealth become one of the most frequent topics in Charity. In the ten issues published in that year it always occurs in close connection with religious issues. In general one can say that wealth is sharply criticized, as well as its owners -the rich, who are identified with capitalism, bourgeoisie, aristocracy and church hierarchy, in other words with the enemies of communism.
The writers of articles, sometimes anonymous or signed with initials, present the topic of wealth to the readers as a theological problem -they most commonly support their arguments with biblical texts, from which they derive unambiguous moral condemnations. The reasoning proceeds in all articles in a very similar fashion: Christianity proper is one in which the poor man comes first -just as in communism. Between the lines one can therefore read that a true Christian is a communist. Then the practice of the rich, who are viewed as bad Christians and at the same time enemies of communism, is condemned.
When arguing against wealth and the rich great Christian personages are often used. here the article by Josef vlastimil "Woe to you who are rich" must be cited. 30 There the author paints a picture of the poverty, hunger and unemployment of many people in the world of Western cities, where the rich only take interest in their property and the poor employees cringe in shanties without help. he claims that in these cities many poor are dying in poverty, while their richer co-patriots are holding magnificent banquets in grand hotels -while the American army is murdering women and children in Korea. Then he presents a number of claims to show what Jesus himself thought of property and at the same time prove that Jesus was the first socialist: he unambiguously told the rich young man that if he wants to be perfect he must sell his property and give it to the poor; he further said that those who accumulate property will hardly enter god's Kingdom -as well as those who rely on their property. he preached poverty in the Sermon on the Mount. he allegedly constantly indicated that much property hinders salvation: "That is how we must understand his words, roaring in the souls of the rich: "Woe to you who are rich!" (Luke 6:24). As if he were saying, "Woe to you who light-heartedly watch your workers who have hardly a piece of bread to eat, you reduce their incomes and feast yourselves!" 31 The author mentions that Jesus did not condemn property honestly acquired, he even kept company with some well-to-do people -i.e., he did not condemn the rich because they were rich -but because they did not help the poor. Christ proclaimed love of one's neighbour to be the main foundation of his Kingdom. love of one's neighbour is therefore to be the motor of social sensitivity and acting according to the gospel. only that will bring the rich to justly reward the work of their neighbours. Then comes the claim that the church in the past did not honour Christ's precepts and forgot about loving one's neighbour -although the precept of loving the other is still valid. Then comes an "update", which is already pure propaganda: "In holes and huts there are crammed in the West or in the colonies unemployed wretches with no health care in rags, for a piece of bread accompanied by invectives and contempt, without protection and compassion of those to whom human lives should be of more value than sacks filled with dollars. But  Another author, Pavel Martin, presents Jesus and the Apostles as workers. he quotes the epistle of James exhorting against the rich -especially against those who withhold the deserved pay of workers. 34 elsewhere on the occasion of Advent Josef Ambrož speaks of the mission of Jesus Christ to liberate humanity from spiritual and moral poverty: "Magnificent palaces, statues, paintings, books by great poets -all that was merely a grandiose set decoration for the drama of exploitation of man by man ... the imposing figures of the famous poets and philosophers of the times were merely propagandistic instruments of political and economic oppression." 35 Jesus preached the equality and unanimity of all persons and peoples and fought for the poor, and therefore is exemplar for us. 36 In the last issue of 1950 the discussion of "What Jesus thought of wealth", which had been going on throughout the year, culminates in the article "holy night, silent night..." with a beautiful illustration of the manger. having colourfully depicted Jesus' birth the anonymous author wrote: "Who were those distinguished by God and allowed to see the Saviour? They were poor shepherds! Looking after the fat herds of the rich, they often did not even have enough to feed their families for their labour... Born for us, for us... For the future Christian world, and therefore also for us, a champion of simple human rights and just order was born. It was HE who so clearly said "Sooner a camel will pass through a needle ear, than a single rich man through heaven's gate..." 37 John the Baptist was also presented as a campaigner against the rich. 38 elsewhere Josef vlastimil uses the figure of St Adalbert, shown as someone who has learnt the "...weakness of life principles founded on wealth and power derived from wealth and titles." 39 Although he was bishop and nobleman, he allegedly became an exemplar son of the Czech people: he could make a living by working with his own hands, he did not let himself be beguiled by the magnificence and favour of the court and stood up for the people. The author even has him say "Do not believe the hypocritical promises of capitalist society, but follow me, Adalbert, my way of truth leading towards Slavonic East." 40 Wealth was also discussed in the context of emphasizing so-called peace activities. exhortation to peace was placed in connection with those who want war: the greedy, insatiable capitalists. 41 The cruelty of the rich is shown e.g. on the example of the "terrible" conditions in American maternal hospitals, as compared to Czechoslovak ones: American hospitals just pump mothers and their families for money, they will not take care of a woman in need because they have no interest in an ordinary human, i.e., they only take care of the rich. In Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, everything is free, the aim is the health of the mother and the child. 42 Elsewhere one can find the claim that the rich -the capitalists and the bourgeois -were never interested in the health of the people, since taking care of the needy would be expensive. At the forefront there is again the state which takes care of its poor. 43 The topic of wealth is also mentioned in connection with the clergy: the article "Christians and work" paints repulsive pictures of lazy priests in offices and friars in cloisters engaging in repasts and revelling in their "voluminous bodies", who in wealth and without work live at the expense of others. The anonymous author of the text admonishes the clergy to go "to the lord's vineyard", to work for the Kingdom of god -he therefore unconditionally rejects monastic life. 44 When elsewhere Brothers of Charity in Prague are praised for selflessly taking care of the sick and dying for years "...when the rich forgot about them and scorned them", their way of caring is nonetheless viewed as a relict of the past, because the contemporary state takes much better care of whoever needs it. 45 In his article "Roman Catholic priests fighting for peace" Alexandr horák underlines not only the necessity for the clergy to cooperate with the government on the path to socialism, but speaks of the divine purpose at Creation, which is "bonum commune", the common good. on the basis of that the author criticizes those who live at the expense of others and acquire property by chance, stratagem, avarice, inheritance, or primogeniture. he also criticizes the hierarchical order of the church which did not reward poor clergy (classified as workers!) according to their work, unlike the current state of affairs when clergy are rewarded by the state according to their merits. 46 In the article "We need priests" eduard oliva directly links life in riches and low priestly vocations. 47 It remains to be said that in the last year of publication the journal moved thematically towards emphasizing peace, admiration for the Soviet Union and proclamation of loyalty to the Communist Party. Religious issues played a marginal part, the focus was especially on health and political topics. 48 Criticism of wealth virtually disappeared from the journal pages. 49 It is quite logical: the phase when communists were trying to secure the loyalty of some Christian faithful by attempting to show them that communism is compatible with Christianity was over. The fight against the church was deemed to be practically won and it was possible to gradually proceed to the next phase of planned dissolution.