caritas and the best gift I ever got (and am)

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:41-47, RSV-CE.

This morning I wanted to wear Joe's Mancino's shirt, so I put it on. Wearing it, I wanted to see how little of my own clothing I could wear today. I've got on Anne's running shoes, Paul's scout socks, Emily's jeans, Anne's belt-ish-thing, Joe's painted Mancino's shirt, Anne's earrings (not quite matching), my mom's hoodie, and my dad's orange hat. Near last-minute, I switched my undershirt for one of Anne's, then kicked around my pile of gloves to see whose I had. Halfway to Mauck, I realized the mittens I usually wear are either Emily's or Joe's.

I thought about carrying my things in the purple Wilson bag today, but I'd lent it to [G] for the semester. The bag used to be Emily's, and she let me take it to Timbers camp after eighth grade, and I don't think I ever gave it back to her. It was in Anne's closet for a while, I think. We've all taken it on trips and to camps.

Originally I typed "my purple Wilson bag" but I erased it and wrote "the" because it isn't really my bag, or Emily's bag, or Anne's bag. Possession of the bag is so fluid it doesn't really matter. The only thing preventing Anne from using it is a two-hour drive, and, well, Emily lives rather farther away and has her own nifty red suitcases. But I really have no attachment to it that would prevent them from having it. (That "having" is closer to "holding" than "owning.")

I suspect this is pretty close to what the early church did with their possessions. I don't think their idea of charity was "I own X, and you don't own X, and you need X, so I will give you my X so you can own an X." I think their idea of charity--caritas, yes?--was this fluid possession, or lack of possession. This shirt isn't "mine," it's just the shirt that I happen to have paid for and happens to be in my closet, but that's entirely irrelevant. It's a shirt. If you need to put something on, here's a shirt. You're dressing up and you need to look nice; let's look through the closet and see what's in the closet. We aren't even thinking about "my" shirt or "your" shirt but "the" shirt that happens to be there. You can "have" it--the "have" that means "hold" or "use," not the "have" that means "own" or "possess" or "want payment for" or "want back."

If we could all do this consistently, the world would be a better place, but still communism doesn't work.

Well, this isn't communism. Forcing people to share only works as discipline and training for caritas, not a replacement for caritas itself. If it is not free, it is not love.

(Additionally, when you base your institution on atheism, you're going to have very serious problems. Even if you don't believe in God, even a cursory glance at human history will tell you that human nature desires God, and common sense should tell you that that's not a strategic desire to stifle.)

I remember my mom relating to me something she heard from a priest: the best gift you can give your child is another sibling.

Is that true?




Heck yes.