I think its time I confess a little dark secret in Filia Day’s closet. Right, here we go. Ever since my early teenage years I have developed somewhat of a weird obsession with communism, not of course, as a personal lifestyle choice. While the other little girls playing with Barbie and My Little ponies, I was reading Animal Farm and doing school projects on Marx. That’s not to say I didn’t have a Barbie or two. However, while my friends were planning Barbie and Ken’s life out with their horse and mobile caravan, my Barbie and Ken were planning a revolution. Needless to say, I dropped the call for a revolution quite swiftly once I was told by my parents that the wall had fallen, yet I continued to read, study and inspect anything (and I mean anything) to do with communism. You think I’m joking? Well, a telling piece of evidence says otherwise – I wrote my thesis refuting Marxian conceptions of the State.
Now you may be wondering where this meandering rant is actually going and what exactly it has to do with T-shirts. Well, as a consequence of my little obsession with Marxism and communism, I tend to know a little more about communism that the average 24 year old – my generation were wee young things when the wall fell and in consequence are near ignorant to the very real threat communism posed to western civilisation from the late 50s onwards. Let’s face it, most teenagers these days don’t know much about communism. That’s no generalisation. I marked 150 essays on communism late last year that proved exactly that. Another stark example of my generation’s ignorance of communism (and might I add it’s associated atrocities) is that over the last couple of years it has becoming increasingly trendy to wear t-shirts (and accessories including pendants, coffee mugs and even underwear) with the face of Che Guevara smeared all over them. You know him, the guy with the beret with the communist star on it, the long hair and the rebellious looking beard – if you haven’t seen someone wearing one – WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
I sometimes wonder (and often doubt) if these kids know exactly who it is they are sporting on their clothing. Let me introduce you to Che Guevara. No he’s not a Argentinean freedom fighter, he joined the revolution with Fidel Castro and quickly attain a reputation for a ruthless executioner – imprisoning and slaughtering thousands of Cubans in his time. In the late-1960s, Che was assassinated by the CIA and, in consequence, became a martyr for the anti-establishment movement in the US.
Yes, that’s right my generation (and probably yours) is stupid enough to plaster an Argentinean butcher all over there clothing in the name of freedom (which is a little ironic considering he worked for a communist dictatorship).
I have to say though, I do like some of the anti-Che memorabilia that is going round at the moment. Here’s three of my favourites (excuse my French) “Murdering communist bastard.”, “Che Guevara: Fooling middle class white kids since 1967″ and “Don’t know who this guy is but he sure sells a lot of t-shirts.” Classic.
Wasn’t Che Guevara that nice young man in Motorcycle Diaries?
Fillia,
I have the same issue with those Che Guevara shirts as well!
They annoy the hell out of me.
Although I do laugh every time I see the shirt that has Helen Clark looking like Che Guevara on it – now that is funny and true!
I’d never been bothered by them in my ignorance; I guess I know better now! Actually, I still know very little about communism, even though I studied communist Russia in high school history. Filia, I’m curious though, what interested you so much about communism?
BTW, (and I’m not entirely comfortable in suggesting this but…) can I humbly suggest we be vigilant against use of profanities (and I don’t mean the “bastard” one)? Afterall, it’s a Catholic forum and we ought to act as we would in Jesus’ company. Thanks!
God bless,
TTM
Communism in principle (as opposed to in practice) is simply the gospel applied to social organisation.
It’s mentioned twice in the book of Acts – “and none considered his possesions his own but all who had shared with those in need”.
When people see the face of Che they see the face of a freedom fighter – someone who sacrificed himself to free others – that’s sacrificial love in action !
Of course Che, like all of us, was a sinner and did some bad things (systematically executing all his political opponents in a cuban prison shortly after coming to power).
But, hey, that’s nothing more than the Jews expected the Mesiah to do to his political enemies (and when he didn’t you can see why they thought he wasn’t really the Messiah). And king David lined up his enemies and systematically executed every third man.
Pot, kettle, black.
Che seems to have struggled with chastity (Lenin would not have approved Che’s promiscuity). But, hey, don’t we all ?
Why not reclaim Che’s face by seeing it as a icon of Christ – the good things Che did by Christ working thru him ? And if we can see Che’s sins then that reminds us of our own ?
I think its wonderful that young people are still interested in Communism. I be way more concerned if all they were interested in was Capitalism. It’s also wonderful that the best young people, like Agnes, can see that violence is not the way of Christ. And that’s a huge step foward.
God Bless
Sorry, that should be Filia, not Agnes. Still get those Days mixed up !
God Bless
If you wanted to see the face of Che struggling for the poor and exploited in the Auckland local body election, go to http://ram-auckland.net
God Bless
I have to say that the violence in the Old Testament bothers me. Like the way David executed the young man who killed King Saul (at Saul’s request after he had already attempted suicide by falling on his spear) before the Philistines arrived to torture him. 2 Samuel 1:1-16
Chris Sullivan said:”When people see the face of Che they see the face of a freedom fighter – someone who sacrificed himself to free others – that’s sacrificial love in action !”
Trouble is, he sacrificed for exactly the wrong reasons. Any suggestion that Marxist Communism is similar or compatible with the Christian Communism written about in the Acts of the Apostles is ludicrous! The two might be similar in operation, but ideology and end goals are polar opposites. One seeks the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth, the other seeks the destruction of anything divine on the Earth to be replaced with frail human accomplishments.
Btw, Filia Day I also have always been fascinated by Communism and I also realized the error of my ways.
St Joseph the Worker, pray for us.
Marxism holds to a false dialectical determinism that fails to see that the human person can rise above their conditioning.
Put simply: Marx thinks you have to be an oppressor if you are an employer and you have to be oppressed if you are an employee.
Thus, to break this dialectic he wants to smash this ’system’ – taking money out of the equation. He imagines that people will do whatever work needs to be done because it needs to be done – and then receive their living independently according to their needs.
This is not the sharing according to the book of Acts. There it is precisely the grace of Christ that is helping people to rise above any limits of conditioning to discover the true person of the other. It is love – and there is not a place for love in Marx’s culture of efficiency. It is all geared to mastery and domination. Marx fails to realise that man’s finality is higher than the order of the efficiency of work. Man is fulfilled in the gratuity of personal love – and ultimately in the contemplation of divine love. But for Marx, this was all a trick to keep people in imagined happiness, to distract them from the true bitterness they should feel in being employees. This was holding up the Revolution, which was needed to smash the upper classes – and any structures that supported them – for if our finality was above our work then we might even be content to work for someone else without resentment, without oppositional dialectic, without thoughts of revenge and murder. Perhaps we could love our employers in Christ and they could love us in Christ.
That is closer to the vision of Acts – and that is precisely what Marx warred against, as did those who ushered in all the destruction to human persons that has characterised all expressions of Marxism ‘in practice’.
Nice to meet you the other night by the way, Chris – and your lovely wife and children.
Marx thinks you have to be an oppressor if you are an employer and you have to be oppressed if you are an employee.
Ummm … The would explain why Karl Marx’s close friend and collaborator, Frederick Engels, was himself a Capitalist !
I don’t recall anything in Marx’s argument which rejects love.
God Bless
“I don’t recall anything in Marx’s argument which rejects love”.
Chris.
Uummm…….” By their fruits you shall know them.”
With the benefit of hindsight, Marxism has failed worldwide – and Helen will fing out shortly also.
Check the record.
and BTW, have a great trip , mate. Give my regards to Shea and co.
It was great to meet up with you, Poor Clear, last night.
I think one would have to say that Marx’s defintion of Communism
is very well aligned with Christ’s final summary of his teachings in the gospel of St Matthew Ch 25 where we read that we will be judged on whether or not we feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, cloth the naked, tend the sick etc. In other words, whether or not we not only give personally to the poor but whether we do what we can to to constuct a society which gives priority to human needs, which by Marx’s own definition is Communism.
Because the final judgement is not only individual but also collective.
That actually existing Communist societies never got very far towards the communist ideal is not a reflection on the ideal being problematic, but on the nature of human sin and the means attempted to acheive communism.
There is a tendency these days to see our faith as very indiviualistic and to forget the social imperative of the gospel, and of papal social teaching, which is to transform the sinful structures of capitalist greed into the civilisation of love which JPII spoke of where the needs of the poor are given priority over private greed.
It is an indicment on Catholics that too often we give very scant attention to this fundamental of Catholic social teaching.
God Bless
Hi Chris. I’m no expert, but I certainly do not see Christ’s teachings as compatible with Marxist philosophy. You made an extrapolation earlier : “Communism in principle (as opposed to in practice) is simply the gospel applied to social organisation.” and there’s the first point of disagreement. The moment you make this about granting the power of redistribution to a social organisation and not a personal choice, you are perverting the message. And for that matter, Christs teachings are not about the redistribution of wealth and the control of resources.
Consider the story of the widow who donates two copper coins (Luke 21:1-4) and Jesus says “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.” He accepts her donation. He didn’t demand the rich put in more, and he didn’t suggest she should pay less. He just noted the honest and devout generosity displayed by the widow. That is not communism.
I think here you are searching for similarities, but the differences are too significant to overlook.
Why not reclaim Che’s face by seeing it as a icon of Christ – the good things Che did by Christ working thru him ? And if we can see Che’s sins then that reminds us of our own ?
Che has already been taken by the Gay Lobby and you’ll have trouble getting copyright. Hitler is still up for grabs though.
Of course Che, like all of us, was a sinner and did some bad things (systematically executing all his political opponents in a cuban prison shortly after coming to power).
Of course, Hitler, like all of us, was a sinner and did some bad things …
Umm, Chris, why are you so keen on choosing sick puppies as poster children as an icon for Christ? Why not stick with Christ. Not enough brand power for you?
PS: Sorry to invoke Godwins law. But Chris, really? Have you read up on Che Guevara? I mean the statements from survivors of his brutality, not the rose tinted freedom fighter brochures.
I hate to be harsh, but are you kidding? Chris have you READ or studyed Marx? His principals were not at all Christian and no, those in the bible, in Acts is totally different.
Unbelievable.
I’m taking a leaf from Captains book “Gianna shakes her head slowly in disbelief”
PS I have a t-shirt which says “Che’s dead: Get over it”
:mrgreen:
Hope the meet up was great. I was on three day silent retreat which was wonderful and prayed for y’all.
Chris by defination Marx rejects love, because he rejects God. I realise he was trying to do something good, however communisim is not a good thing. In fact some of the worst attrocities of the last 20th century have been at the hands of communists.
Ultimately communisim rejects God and thus, it will never work. Why do you think JPII worked so hard to rid it from his beloved homeland? Or why our Lady of Fatima talked about the evil of communisim.
I’m sorry I realise you may have some romantic ideal (”It works in principal”) but no, it doesn’t, even in principal. Its a nice idea, I understand why Marx proposed it, but put simply, it doesn’t work and nor will it solve the worlds problems
PS The early Christians did not live in some sort of pre-Marxist hippie commune. Yes they held things in common but try running a country that way.
I’m still reeling. I’m sorry. I just have no conception how anyone can put Marxism and Christianity in the same basket. Tui Moto strikes again :mrgreen:
Gianna,
I think you mean “The publication whose name shall not be spoken strikes again”
Zen,
Granting the power of redistribution to a social organisation is a personal choice.
So is refusing to do that.
Christs teachings are not about the redistribution of wealth
But what did he say to the rich man ? To give his wealth to the poor and come follow Christ. However you dice it, that’s redistribution of wealth.
Christianity, and Judaism before it, have always been about redistribution of wealth.
“Che’s dead: Get over it”
I’m not sure that rejoicing over someones death is quite the Judeo/Christian tradition.
If we examine Marx’s definition of Communism
Then it is clear that this can only be achieved by love, because it presupposes both love for the other to adress their needs and self sacrificial love by the self to contribute according to ones own abilities (and not one’s self interest).
Marx recognised this because he insisted that communism would require a very advanced civilisation (the civilisation of love John Paul II talked about).
It was only after the Marxists had organised trade unions that the Church officially came to the party many years later with Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum teaching the right of workers to join trade unions and strike. If workers had waited for the official church to lead in defending their rights then they might still be waiting.
Who then was God’s instrument in defending his people (the poor workers of the 19th Century) ? Marx and the early labour organisers ? Of the Church which dragged its feet (as Deus Caritas Est candidly admits) ?
The reality is that Marx was God’s imperfect agent. And so was Che and Castro.
God Bless
Ok Chris
MARX SAID THAT GOD COULD NOT EXIST IN A COMMUNIST SOCIETY
ARGH!!!
I can’t even believe I have to try and convince someone that Christ and communisim don’t mix, I figured that was a given
I am having serious deja vous, have we not had this conversation before Chris on another post?
I’ll repost some of Max’s and my own rebuttal of your thesis that Marxism and Communism can coexist with Christianity. This is absolute nonsense.
I suggest you read De Torre – Marxism, Socialism and Christianity as well as some of what our Popes have said about the inherent errorS in Marxian thought.
Also, you said:
“The reality is that Marx was God’s imperfect agent. And so was Che and Castro.”
Ok, following that logic, so was Hitler, so was Stalin etc etc….may I remind you that Che and Castro are responsible for mass slaughtering of Cubans????
Marx may not be DIRECTLY responsible for the mass killings and the degredation of the dignity of the person under communist regimes – but I must remind you that his ideas infromed these regimes – Marx’s ideas have not informed any peaceful regimes to my knowledge…I think that says something.
See posts below for the rebuttal of the compatibility of Marxism and Christianity
This is what Chris said:
“But Marx’s famous statement about religion being the opiate of the people is a statement about the misuse of religious authority, not about the spiritual side of man?”
My reply:
This is kind of true but I think we need to reiterate in a bit more detail Marx’s views on religion. From my own research and reading this is my understanding. Marx famous quote, “religion is the opium of the people” must be understood within the context of his wider argument. He believed that humanity should be satisfied in their work and social relationships and where this was not happening religion was making it bearable. He argued that religion concealed and even gave value to suffering and therefore inhibited the socialist revolution. Therefore, he saw religion, especially Christianity, as a problem that needed to be removed. Once removed, the inevitable proletariat revolution would occur more swiftly. Therefore, it was not merely the corrupt authorities of the time, but religion itself that was a problem.
Also, one cannot deny that Marx was both a materialist and an atheist, and this informs his ideas surrounding humanity- Marx believed in the individual as opposed to the person. The individual is a naturalistic category, biological and sociological, and in Marxian terms does not possess any unique or independent existence apart from race or society. Moreover, Marx rejects the personhood of man. The person is something completely different from the individual in Marxian terms; it is a spiritual and religious category. Personhood dictates that man not only belongs to a natural and social order, but also to the spiritual world. Person is a form of being, higher than anything natural or social. By reducing man to a purely material and sociological being (an individual), and denying the personhood of man, Marx intrinsically rejects the existence of a spiritual nature.
Also this is what Maximus said about the compatibility of Marxism and Christianity:
Having studied Marx I can tell you that he was a devout athiest who did not believe in God.
His quote about religion being the “opiate of the people” was NOT about the misues of religious authority at all – not even close.
Marx saw God as a symbol of an economic system which he thought oppressed and exploited the poor.
Marx believed that people were using religion as a drug, or a form of escapism, to numb the suffering of everyday life.
He did not accept that religion had a place in society, in fact he believed that once his Marxist philosophies took hold then man would no longer need religion to numb his pain, and he believed that relgion needed to be fought against so that man could be free from it.
Marx was a very misguided man who got a lot of things wrong, and as a result of his bad philosophies approximately 150 – 200 million people have been killed in the last 100 years alone by governments who put his Marxist philosophies into practise.
Kind of makes you relaise how totaly wrong and misguided it is to claim that the Catholic Church has killed more people than secularism.
For those who are interested; here is the quote from Marx in full:
“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man?state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
from the introduction of Karl Marx’s 1843 work Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
The above two quotes come from the blog “Can you please just let me be a lefty” – if you want to read the whole context of the argument I suggest you have a look at it!
I’m sorry for all those have read these posts before – but rehashing old arguments that have been clearly refuted on this blog is a waste of time and I’m getting rather sick of going around in circles here – quite frankly I have better things to do with my time.
Gianna,
I think that you’ll find that Marx meant that the kind of religion often practiced in Marx’s time, which was a religion which did very little to change the apalling social conditions of the working class, instead teaching the poor to accept their lot on earth without trying to change it, would not survive.
His prophecy has been fulfilled.
Of course Christ and communism mix – they mix at precisely the point where communism does what is true and good and noble. For example: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, things which Casto and Che’s Cuba has done remarkably better at (although despite its imperfections) then the previous Batista regime in Cuba – a regime which was actively proped up by U.S. business interests.
God Bless
Gianna explodes
Don’t worry Gianna, Marxism is so passe its not funny. Have a mint slice and be reassured by the fact that most who post on the blog (and might I add those who read it, but don’t) can see a reasonable argument when confronted by it. Peace in war, sista. Peace in war.
Gianna,
During the Spanish Civil war there was an Opus Dei priest who was an active communist. The fascists arrested him for distributing communist literature and he was scheduled to be executed the next day.
St Josemaria Escriva famously intervened in favour of the communist priest by visiting the fascist official responsible and urging him not to execute the priest. He was unsucessful but commented on leaving that the fascist official would not live long.
His prophecy was fulfilled when the fascist official died suddenly the next day, resulting in the communist priest being freed.
Communism and Christ have always mixed (so do Republicanism of teh Bush variety and Christ). And every sort of “ism” to some extent – namely the extend to which it is true and good and noble. Every “ism” and ideology contains something good and noble, otherwise no one would be attracted to it (people are only attracted to what seems good to them).
The Holy Father commented recently on the excellent work the Cuban people have done in recent years in extending solidarity and concrete aid to the poor in other countries. That didn’t happen before the Cuban revolution.
Castro himself is a Catholic and a believer.
God Bless
“For example: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, things which Casto and Che’s Cuba has done remarkably better at (although despite its imperfections) then the previous Batista regime in Cuba – a regime which was actively proped up by U.S. business interests.”
Or so their own engineered statistics say….
yes let’s cloth the naked and feed the sick at the expense of silencing those who opposed the regime (either by imprisonment or execution). That’s the social justice of Che and Castro and coincidenctally of all the communistic regimes throughout our history, which might I add, does not seem very just to me. Yes, great logic.
Filia,
How much democracy and freedom in Cuba was there before the revolution ?
The Castro regime is far from perfect but the reality is that it’s a huge step forward from the previous Batista regime.
And when the Church was running society we weren’t all that wonderful in the imprisoning and executing our opponents department either.
Pot, kettle, black.
God Bless
Castro is a believer? Then Castro is not a true communist according to Marx
You know Marx denied the need of man for God. That undermines the very foundations of humanity
Chris, you said:
“During the Spanish Civil war there was an Opus Dei priest who was an active communist. The fascists arrested him for distributing communist literature and he was scheduled to be executed the next day.
St Josemaria Escriva famously intervened in favour of the communist priest by visiting the fascist official responsible and urging him not to execute the priest. He was unsucessful but commented on leaving that the fascist official would not live long.”
He wasn’t NEVER a communist or even a priest at the time, thank you very much Chris. And in fact the event occurred after the Spanish Civil War. Pedro Casciaro was a layman at the time and he was being accused of being a communist (because his Father worked in the government during the Spanish Civil War). Accusations circulated suggesting the Pedro was a communist spy. However, as Pedro suggests in his autobiography the accussations could possibly be reduced to family rivalry between Pedros family and the official’s (the official’s family and Pedro’s knew each other before the Civil war broke out, and his Family went bankcrupt while pedro’s enjoyed a great deal of prosperity). Pedro later became a Priest of Opus Dei. Pedro’s Father later converted as well. I suggest you research your facts a little better. Read Pedro’s autobiography “Dream and your dreams will fall short” for an accurate account, instead of reading selectively.
“And when the Church was running society we weren’t all that wonderful in the imprisoning and executing our opponents department either.”
Accept the Church isn’t based on a inherently flawed premise, like Marxism Chris.
Human falliblity I will allow for – we’re all sinners – but human fallibility mixed with screwed up philosophy isnt a good mix – as has been well demonstrated by ALL communist regimes so far in history.
Pot, kettle, black.
he he he he he
my peples my peples. You know yous remind me of another stories that has been happen to me back in the eyelands. Of Gorse that was pefore yous was been borns. Pasically wif all this talked of bictures on the t shirts haf remindined me of the bictures on my back.
I wewember when i was a poi we did not hafs the t shirts wif da bictures. If we had wanting a bictures on our backs it was hass been giving to us by our mothers when they was hit us. I wewember that i had a bicture of a hand on my backs for a bout a fre weks then was had a bicture of a ruler then a bicture of a chandle. Those bictures we had was a by choice. Not my choice but by choice.
I dont fink you ned to be worries bout all this talk on community and marking. If you want a bicture on your back for fre just go to the eyelands and ask for malaki. She was has been my mothers sisdas friend for sum tyme now.
Ok back to the coconut tres for me. I am was feeled hungry at this the present tyme
Found this by George Weigel – he wrote the biography of JPII – its his commentary on the visit of JPII to Cuba – sounds like he makes a distinction between the Cuban regime and Christianity i.e “Athiestic humanism and Christian humanism”
Pope John Paul II’s visit to Cuba is, from his point of view, a pastoral pilgrimage aimed at strengthening the Catholic Church for whatever future lies ahead of it. The Cuban government, for its part, invited the pope as part of its effort to reintegrate Cuba into the life of the Western hemisphere. Immediate interests, ecclesiastical and political, will be in play throughout the week. But if we widen the analytic lens, the papal pilgrimage looks rather more dramatic. For this will be perhaps the final act in the great ideological drama of the 20th century, the conflict between atheistic humanism and Christian humanism. Christianity entered the ancient world proclaiming the liberation of humanity from the clutches of fate through the power of a creating, redeeming God. Atheistic humanism, a genuine novelty when it emerged in the 19th century, insisted that the opposite was true: God was a yoke, not a liberator, and humanity would be redeemed by its own heroic efforts to perfect the world. This vision of human self-redemption so permeated European intellectual elites that, 100 years ago, it was widely agreed that the 20th century would see religion withering away. A maturing humanity would put aside its childish need for the fantasy called “God” and grow up.
Communism was one expression of atheistic humanism. As it worked itself out historically, communism became many things: a form of revolutionary politics, an economic model, a method of social control. Socially, economically, indeed humanistically, communism was a catastrophic failure. But why is that so hard for some to admit?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that communism retained the formal aspects of a religion. It had a doctrine of salvation and a theory of the “last things:” redemption through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would mark the end of history. It had rituals, such as May Day and party congresses. It had an ethic: The revolution justified the means to its accomplishment. It even had an apostolic succession by which leaders legitimized their power; in Cuba’s case, the orthodox line ran from Marx to Lenin to Castro. Despite its manifold failures, communism remained powerfully attractive, especially to intellectuals, because it addressed the enduring human need for redemption in a quasi-religious way.
Communism’s collapse has forced the question of whether atheistic humanism isn’t a contradiction in terms. Its intentions may have been noble, but a humanism that rejects God and scorns a transcendent horizon for human aspiration seems condemned to turn on itself. A world without windows or doors becomes suffocating, disorienting and dehumanizing. That was the world of Lenin’s Lubyanka Prison and Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago. That is the world from which Cubans have fled for almost four decades.
G.K. Chesterton used to say that when a man ceased to believe in God, he didn’t believe in nothing, he believed in anything. Communism illustrates the point nicely. Communism began by affirming the human possibility in history; it ended up building history’s most lethal slaughterhouses and justified them in the name of human redemption. That was a lie, but it wasn’t a bald lie. It was a lie based on a delusion. When a man stops believing in God, he really will believe anything.
John Paul II comes to Cuba as the embodiment of an alternative humanism, Christian humanism. Dismissed as an absurdity 100 years ago, Christian humanism is one of the most powerful culture-shaping forces in a world on the edge of a new millennium. As articulated by John Paul II, it was instrumental in the collapse of European communism, in Latin America’s transition to democracy and in the Philippines’ “People Power” revolution. In each, Christian humanism defeated the often overwhelming material power of its opponent. Why? Because a vision of human dignity rooted in man’s creation by God and redemption by Christ proved stronger than an ultramundane conception of the human person, human community and human destiny.
Atheistic humanism claimed that Christianity’s God was alienating and disempowered human beings. The Christian humanism that John Paul II will preach in Cuba has disproved that claim empirically. Christian humanism is liberating; biblical faith makes a genuine freedom possible. That will be one of the great truths of the 21st century. Meanwhile, the 20th draws to a close with the list of signatories growing longer on atheistic humanism’s instrument of surrender.
Filia,
I think we’re talking of two different Opus Dei priests and two different incidents.
God Bless
Chris mate, can i call you mate, seems like you need one.
I have also read Dream and your dreams will fall short and well Filia is quite correct in what she says of that “incident”. Now unless this situation has occurred twice with the same outcome and background with the same people then yes maybe you are talking about two different situations… OR NOT
Come on mate
No we are talking about the same situation Chris, I know the story well, the fact that you said:
“His prophecy was fulfilled when the fascist official died suddenly the next day, resulting in the communist priest being freed.”
That gave it away as that only happened once to St Josemaria.
That was Pedro, I’ve heard the story hundreds of times – but HE WAS NOT A COMMUNIST, in fact far from it.
I think I should let you in on a little secret (well its not such a secret actually), I’m a supernumerary in Opus Dei. So I think I know what I am talking about.
Chris,
Socialism and Christianity are totally incompatible.
Christianity is about freedom to do the good, Socialism is about taking away people’s rights and forcing them to think and act in a certain way.
Marx was an atheist Chris – end of story – and he opposed religion.
History has shown us that every socialist/communist regime that has ever existed has always been a brutal tyranny of violence, oppression and corruption.
If you think that Christ would associate himself with such things then you believe in a very ugly and anti-human God indeed.
It’s okay, folks – perhaps this is one of those times when Chris is throwing out a red herring for us all to come in and give the truth of the matter.
I’m personally very grateful to him for so consistently taking it upon himself to be vilified and calumnied for the greater good. It takes a big person to do such a thing – to ensure that those who know the truth of the matter come in and present it to the (being frank) world.
Brilliant stuff.
Socialism and Christianity are totally incompatible.
Christianity is about freedom to do the good, Socialism is about taking away people’s rights and forcing them to think and act in a certain way.
Well, if you want to define socialism like that, then yes that’s a true statement.
But that isn’t how socialism is usually defined.
In South America, “taking away people’s rights and forcing them to think and act in a certain way”, is usually associated with capitalism and it’s associated dictatorships.
The right to eat is also a right, and a right accorded a very high priority by Jesus, and the fact remains that the Cuban people eat better today because of the revolution Che gave his life for.
Did Che fulfill the conditions of St Matthew Chapter 25 ?
Did he help feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the sick, set the prisoners free (there were plenty under Batista, and Cuba was a brothel for rich Americans) ?
Yes he did.
And he gave his life for these high and noble ideals.
Sure some of his methods were wrong. The civlilisation of love cannot be built on killing and represion.
But those who wear Che TShirts are not celebrating Che’s killing and his at times brutal methods.
They are celebrating what he did for the poor.
In other words, they are celebrating what he did for Christ.
God Bless
Hey Hitler helped the Germans to eat, and got them all jobs, got rid of the massive inflation. I mean thats a good thing too (and it was…if he had died before his little war, I think he would be remembered as a great german leader with some racist tendancies)
So lets celebrate what he did for Christ
:mrgreen:
And he gave his life for these high and noble ideals.
Sure some of his methods were wrong. The civlilisation of love cannot be built on killing and represion.
But those who wear Che TShirts are not celebrating Che’s killing and his at times brutal methods.
They are celebrating what he did for the poor.
In other words, they are celebrating what he did for Christ.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maybe…could you apply this argument to the Church sometimes Chris? You know, sometimes its methods were not 100% but lets celebrate what its done for Christ?
mmmm I obviously haven’t TOTALLY figured out the whole bold italics thing.
Whats the code for italics and quoting again?
“But those who wear Che TShirts are not celebrating Che’s killing and his at times brutal methods.”
Following that logic, if I wore a Tshirt with a picture of Hitler on it because I wanted to celebrate the fact that he was a good leader (and I too aspire to be a good leader) would I get away with it? No, because the fact of the matter reamins he slaughtered human beings en masse – same with Che.
“In South America, “taking away people’s rights and forcing them to think and act in a certain way”,is usually associated with capitalism and it’s associated dictatorships.”
I would agree here Chris, we must be careful in the liniks we make – in regime studies in my years in the Political Studies Department at AoU (actually by the infamously dismissed lecturer Paul Buchanan) it was drummed into us to separate Dictatorship and Democracy (these are opposites) and Capitalism and Communism (these are opposites).
It’s really the flawed premises of Marxism (materialism and a denial of human dignity by underrating the spiritual side of man) that I have a problem with and the inability of Communism (pure) and Democracy to co-exist without marginalising human dignity. I conclude Marxism just does not cut it. Marxist Theory itself is inherently flawed and not once in history has it been applied successfully to unhold the dignity of the person.
“The right to eat is also a right, and a right accorded a very high priority by Jesus, and the fact remains that the Cuban people eat better today because of the revolution Che gave his life for. Did Che fulfill the conditions of St Matthew Chapter 25 ?”
Well whether he actually fulfilled the conditions of Matthew Chapter 25 is debatable. What about the commandment “Thou shall not kill?”
Humberto Fontovo has written an interesting book, here is a little story about Che that he recounts.
Che joined the Cuban revolution with Fidel Castro and, until one day in 1957 when Castro ordered his first execution, he was a nobody. He volunteered to go with a communist executioner who, upon hesitating to complete Castro’s orders, was shoved aside by Che who quickly stepped in to shot the executionee in the temple. Che later wrote to his father that “at that moment I discovered that I really like killing”. Che became the head of the prison La Cabana where all suspected of opposing Castro were placed. Che signed 400 death warrants in his first three months.
Pierre San Martin was in La Cabana and recalled seeing a 14-year-old boy dragged in front of Che. His crime was defending his father, who had been arrested and shot. “We saw Che unholstering his pistol. He put the barrel to the back of the boy’s neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.”
Gianna,
You’re right. One of the German Catholic bishops famously gave credit to Hitler because he got the unemployed back into work. Even National Socialism has some remnents of socialism !
(i)itlaic this(/i)
(b)bold this(/b)
Replace ( with “less than” and the ) with “greater than”.
God Bless
he slaughtered human beings en masse
Well, if 400 counter-revolutionaries in the Havana prison amounts to “en masse” then maybe.
But I don’t think that’s in the same league as Hitler, or even Pinochet (both of whom were Catholic – and Pinochet supposedly was devoutedly Marian !).
What Che did killing the prisoners was, of course, very wrong.
But while we are on killing. It was the CIA who had Che tortured and killed in cold blood in Bolivia.
You are against the CIA’s killing too huh ? Some years back the NZ Herald had an article documenting an estimated 1 million people killed by the CIA over the years.
I’m not sure any one ideology has a monopoly on killing !
I am pleased that people do recognise that killing is not the way forward. And I think that’s a huge advance.
But you are right. Nonone would go to Marx for spiritual advice.
But if one was calledd to dialogue with Marxists, and I am and I do, then one needs to understand the Marxist position, find common ground where one can agree and work together, and preach the gospel where one can.
Standing apart and condemning marxists and Che is not an effective way to preach the gospel to marxists.
God Bless
My wife is from Bolivia where Che was captured, tortured and killed in cold blood by the CIA.
She says :-
We Bolivians have a great admiration for Che because of his ideals and because he tried to help the Bolivians who were exploited, not just by our own governments and rich but by the USA.
I don’t agree with the killing whether it was the killing of Che or the killing he did. I’ve seen military coups in Bolivia and experienced the killing and torture of the Bolivia military (who tortured my own brother).
I’ve experienced the poverty and the unjustice and the bad things our own military did.
I think many young people today wear Che TShirts without knowing who Che was and what he did.
The Che TShirts today are just capitalist mechandising, a money making scheme, which is ironically against what Che stood for.
God Bless, Ana Maria
“Well, if 400 counter-revolutionaries in the Havana prison amounts to “en masse” then maybe.”
THAT WAS 400 IN HIS FIRST THRREE MONTHS in the prison
I’ll add this information:
In 1961, there were 300,000 Cubans in prison (total population of 6.4 Million.)
That’s 1 in every 21 people.
Compare this to the Soviet Gulag (at any one time) – 1 in 110 people in the country.
and this information:
In 1961, Castro’s regime, propped up by support from the Soviet Union, received nuclear missiles. To avoid war, the American and Soviet governments agreed to allow a Communist government in Cuba in exchange for the removal of the weapons. In 1962, thinking that he was speaking off-record, Che told the London Daily Worker: “If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City.”
Have you got a source (that I could have a look at) for the 1 million killed by the CIA Chris?
The brutalities of the CIA are quite documented historically and I’m quite sceptical myself about its inner workings especially during the 1960s. It frustrates me so much reading about how it tried uncessingly to curbed the Afrian American Civil Rights Movement in the US in the 1960s. Absolutely disgusting.
Definately, capitalism has it faults, oh boy it does (I’m not disagreeing with you there Chris). In fact as I have said before on the blog I am more left leaning but I would stay within the framework of Capitalism (but I have a particular repulsion for Laissez-faire capitalism). I think with intervention some of the flaws of capitalism can be worked out! It is not inherently flawed as a political system, like communism (the only practically applied version of Marxism for the organisation of society).
I too dialogue with Marxists (unfortunately the university is still full of them and so is the union!). In fact my supervisor was a near Marxist (so too in Paul Buchanan). I have learn that to dialogue through friendship, endevouring to be Christ to everyone(well at least trying, with all my human imperfections), is possibly the best way to help those who have diverged from, or never heard the gospel.
However, this isn’t really the issue on the blog is it? One would assume that none on the blog are Marxists?. To put it more plainly, we are rationally debating the worth of Marxism, communist applications and whethers the likes of Che et al should be held up as martyrs, not how to actively preach the gospel to marxists?
Btw, I am as critical of Hitler and Pinochet as the next reasonable person. It’s unfortumate that they happened to be Catholic as well and even more unfortunate that they exercised their freedom in such a distorted and destructive manner.
Good comments Filia
It seems that Chris has fallen into a false dichotomy where by he wrongly thinks that we are forced to either embrace Communism or Laissez-faire capitalism, when in actual fact there is a third and much better option that Chris seems to be unaware of – virtue based Capitalism.
Capitalism is not perfect, but is the best economic system we have available to us.
It is simply a matter of making sure that it doesn’t fall into excess by making sure that it works within the framework of true virtue – which will always see people and truth put before profits.
Filia,
I also have to add that I laugh whenever I see people blaming Capitalism every time the CIA engaged in some immoral action or other.
It’s such a simplistic and unintelligent thing to say.
Anyone with even a basic working knowledge of the CIA, and its history would know that this is simply laughable.
Yes Maximus, its not like the the soviet union or anything had an agencies resembling it….
*Filia grins sarcastically*
The CIA (especially under J.Edgar Hoover) did some pretty nasty stuff – but I don’t think its gonna cut it if you wanted to use that as a means to bringing down the whole capitalist system….. I don’t think capitalism created the CIA, that’s the kind of stuff for conspiracy websites!
*Filia laughs because Maximus is right, it is laughable*
I would dispute that Hitler was a Catholic, or Christian. Christianity was more of an external propaganda mask for him than something he believed. Allow me to quote from NZ’s own KiwiCatholic.com:
I don’t know if Pinochet was, but I wouldn’t be taking that claim at face value either.
God bless,
TTM
Placing the “Communism” that Christ spoke of (communism gives a bad taste – he was really talking about supportive communal living) and the Communism – that atheistic stuff – that disrupted the 20th century, is a false dichotomy.
Marxist Socialist Communism was an ECONOMIC system – the dictatorship of the Proletariate – which was to use force – revolution – to redistribute wealth – in other words, steal it.
Christ’s version was a polar opposite – to give willingly, motivated by a Love for God. To sacrifice Self for others – Marxism promoted self interest – take what you need from the rich by force. That’s why Jesus offered the young rich man -”Dives” – to give away his wealth freely and…AND…wait for it…”COME FOLLOW ME”
Quite a different call that Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao etc etc gave.
TTM,
What defines being a Catholic is the sacrament of baptism.
Hitler was a baptised Catholic and Stalin was a baptised Russian Orthodox.
OK, they did a lot of things against the CHurch and against Jesus.
But the fact remains that they were baptised into the Church.
God Bless
Yes Chris.
And Judas was one of the twelve apostles.
BTW
How’s Denver Chris?
Wondered how long it would take you to get on line
Don,
Denver’s great. It’s a mile high so I’m still acclimitising to the altitude. Not to mention the jet lag ! Not sure if I’ll make it to meet up with Mark & Sherry.
God Bless
Chris,
but it is very misleading, indeed scandalous, to say that Hitler was Catholic. Would you, for example, call an atheist who was baptized in infancy a “Catholic”? I would argue that he ceased to be Catholic when he rejected Christ and His Church. Otherwise you would be giving the impression that Hitler acted faithfully in accordance with the Church teachings (which is the reason why many atheist and anti-Catholic websites use the “Hitler was a good Catholic” argument against the Church).
God bless,
TTM
Hitler hated the Church. I can’t even believe anti-Catholic websites try and link the two of them together. Thats like saying that Stalin was raised a good Orthodox boy. Hitler may have believed in the Divine Mission of Germany and their place in history but he certainly wasn’t a fan of the Church or christianty which he rejected because a) it was linked to the Jews and b) helped the weak and less fortunate (again something Hitler didn’t really subscribe to)