At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Pope Francis: A Socialist By Any Other Name

posted by Jack Kerwick

Pope Francis is once again insisting that he is not a communist, that his abiding concern for “the poor” is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, not the ideology of Marx, Engels, or any other communist.

Back in 2010, while still a Cardinal, he felt the need to do the same.

Why?

It may very well be inaccurate to describe the Pope as a communist.  But—and it pains this Catholic writer to admit this—one can be forgiven for suspecting that he is friendlier to this noxious ideology than many of us would care to think.

First, neither Francis’ recent remarks nor those from 2010 include an express repudiation of communism.  That his concern for the poor reflects Francis’ commitment to Christianity in no way speaks to his thoughts on communism. Logically, subscription to one theory is perfectly compatible with respect for and appreciation of any number of others—and it certainly doesn’t entail an unqualified rejection of all others.

That is, one can believe that Christianity contains “the fullness of truth” while simultaneously affirming what truth is found in other systems of thought.  St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are two notable examples of Christian thinkers who did precisely this vis-à-vis the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, respectively.

Similarly, while Francis derives his motivation from Christianity, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he cannot and/or does not sympathize with communism.

Secondly, “communism” can mean different things to different people.  For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr. denied that he was a communist on the grounds that he rejected “materialism,” the philosophical doctrine that matter is all that there is, the doctrine underwriting Marxism.

However, to reject Marx’s theory of communism, much less his theory of materialism, does not translate into a rejection of communism as such.  To suggest otherwise is like saying that if I reject Calvin’s theology of Christianity, I must reject Christianity as such.

The closest Francis has come to criticizing communism is when he articulated a heavily qualified criticism of “liberation theology,” a hard leftist approach to Christianity.  And even then, the Pope simply noted that its “Marxist interpretation of reality”—again, whatever exactly this means—was a “limitation” while commending liberation theology for “its positive aspects.”

When communism is understood as most of us understand it, as an ideology demanding a radical redistribution of goods for the purposes of “Equality” or “Fairness” or whatever, then it should be obvious that it can afford to dispense with philosophical materialism and even its “Marxist interpretation of reality.”

In other words, “Christian communism” is not a meaninglessmoniker.

That the Pope has refused to unabashedly, unequivocally repudiate communism (and/or socialism) is doubtless one big reason that some have viewed him as a communist sympathizer.  Yet there is another: His Holiness has adamantly repudiated that system commonly called “capitalism.”

Now, Francis’ supporters have leapt to his defense on this score.  For example, the Catholic writer Selwyn Duke has observed that Francis has never critiqued “capitalism” by name, but instead has simply called for “a God-centered ethics.” Daniel Doherty writes that while the Pope is critical of “unfettered capitalism and capitalism generally,” his remarks on these matters “hardly” constitute “a clarion call for Marxist revolution [.]”

What Duke and Doherty say of the Pope can be said just as easily of any Democratic politician in the United States.  Democrats, especially among election time when they are busy courting the Christian vote, spare no occasion to put a Gospel dress on their socialism—all the while refraining from criticizing “capitalism” by name.  They are all in favor of “a God-centered ethic” then.

There is more.  This Pope has made comments regarding our economic system that can and have been made quite frequently by socialists of various stripes.

For one, he has blasted “trickle-down economics” for its “crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” Of course, in the real world, “trickle-down economics” hasn’t a single defender. The only people who speak as if the term had a referent are the socialist-minded.

Francis has also referred to ours as “an economy of exclusion and inequality.”  “Today,” he explains, “everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.  As a consequence,” Francis concludes, “masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.”

Where have we heard this lingo before?

In fact, Francis has spoken out more forcefully than Obama or any other Democrat against our economy when he charged it with violating the commandment againstkilling.  “Such an economy,” Francis insists, “kills” (emphasis added).

Though painful for people to admit it, the truth is that Pope Francis is no friend to the liberty that some of us Americans still treasure.

 

 



  • aliciapkeaton78

    Actually, it’s fascism, plain and simple.
    And your fascism doesn’t work. More people have been lifted out of poverty and into prosperity because of unfettered free markets than any stupid govt redistribution scheme.

  • aliciapkeaton78

    Anyone who advocates using government force for some perceived “greater good” is not some benign holy man. And that is what “redistribution of wealth” is – government force and government coercion. If the pope isn’t a Marxist, he surely is a fascist.

    Which begs the question – this guy is “infallible”? Oh, it makes me laugh at that theology.

  • http://jaimegandarilla.tumblr.com/ Jaime Gandarilla

    Oh, he wants people to not starve to death, preposterous! What would Jesus think?!

    If you hate socialism so much I assume you don’t use public roads, in a safe car regulated by the state, your kids could NEVER go to public school….

    President Carter was a “socialist” for creating the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and for wanting to expand health care.

    President Johnson and President Kennedy were “socialist” for introducing The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and President Johnson also was a “socialist” for establishing Medicare and Medicaid.

    President Truman was a “socialist” for supporting “The Fair Deal”, and “The New Deal”, and for wanting to expand health care. His health care reform ideas are acknowledged as the inspiration for Medicare and Medicaid.

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a “socialist” for introducing “The New Deal”, and for proposing universal health care as part of the Social Security Act.

  • William Hooper

    Maybe you and the majority of Americans think communism/socialist is “an ideology demanding a radical redistribution of goods for the purposes of “Equality” or “Fairness” or whatever,” that definition is hardly accurate. Communism/socialism are economic systems where the government owns and controls the creation and distribution of wealth, goods, and services through guarantees of full employment and strict monetary control. [The emphasis is upon owns and controls.] In the case of Soviet Russia, ownership and control was guaranteed ultimately through a totalitarian political system.

    I have lived under a socialist government, albeit a democratic socialism, and traveled in what were former communist countries. We champion “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in our country. Most of us are pursuing happiness as fast as we can while ignoring those who are struggling for life.

Previous Posts

History, Not Ideology, is Our Guide for Iraq
While listening to Bill Bennett’s radio program the other morning, a caller, respectfully, yet passionately, expressed his incredulity over the fact that anyone continues to take the Bill Kristols and Max Boots (and, by implication, the Bill Bennetts) of the world seriously when it comes to issues

posted 8:13:07am Sep. 18, 2014 | read full post »

When "Race" Riots were White--And What We Can Learn From Them
In light of the “Fergusons” that have erupted in America over the last 50 years or so, it may come as quite a surprise to many of us to learn that from the 19th century clear through to roughly the middle of the 20th, most of those responsible for initiating “race” riots were white. In 18

posted 2:07:15pm Sep. 17, 2014 | read full post »

Interracial Violence Ignored by the Media
For weeks on end, the police shooting death of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri by a white officer had managed to remain front and center on the national stage. The usual suspects in the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) held up this incident as proof that “black men in America are under attack,”

posted 10:01:01pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

Iraq, Ideology, and Truth: Dissecting the Political Blame Game
It would be comical if the fate of our country and the world didn’t hang in the balance to watch the Democrats and their neoconservative Republican rivals point blame at one another as ISIS assumes the national stage. Some thoughts on this internecine battle between these two birds of the same

posted 10:19:44pm Sep. 11, 2014 | read full post »

The "Militarization" of the Police?
Making the rounds through libertarian (and other) circles in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown is the notion that the “militarization” of local police forces is a huge problem besetting the country. Though I self-identify as a conservative, I have a considerable affection

posted 7:39:21am Sep. 04, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.