The early church supported pacifism and wealth sharing that is not overtly supported by the current biblical narrative. I have always wondered what changes were made to the texts when the Roman Empire decided to claim Christianity as it's religion.
I'm not an expert on Church history vis a vis its iterant interpretations of scripture, but the current Catholic teachings may well be consistent with the pacifism and wealth sharing found in the gospels. The problem is that pursuit of one's duty has become a completely decentralized matter up to each person to do, with no community or central planning. So a given person could consult a series of priests and realize that they are, in fact, called to give up all of their things to the poor (which is the broader community), but this would require their own spiritual investigation and then choice. It wouldn't be done as a result of a rule the community has established such as existed during the gospels and Acts. But the lack of top-down direction to give up your things doesn't actually mean you're not supposed to. Part of what's changed is that many more walks of life exist now, so more variety of duties exist. For instance if you take a community that believes the world's end is near, they are not going to be very concerned with long-term goals that will affect married couples and the next generation; but once you are past that and have generations of marriage, etc, then you have different moral duties. For example it is probably immoral (if we're being strict) to hoard wealth for oneself as a single person who doesn't want to marry, whereas it is likewise probably a moral requirement for parents with babies to accumulate enough to ensure their well-being and future education, with some set aside for emergencies and unexpected problems. But this isn't inconsistent with scripture, so much as a different thing than their community was concerned with.
