The Rose in the Cross blog is run by a person with whom I have had correspondence for some years. I feel I should be discreet about his name or religious pilgrimage. He eventually turned to the Hegelian and Marxist viewpoint, perhaps by reaction against the bigotry and unpleasantness of the Christian Right in America, perhaps through philosophical conviction.

He has just published On spirit. The article hits home, as I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for what I would call “classical” socialism, a doctrine by which people get on in life according to their merit rather than by their class of birth or monetary fortune. Socialism was very much the principle of the slum priests in the Victorian era who brought the beauty of holiness to the poor, the lowly, to those who would never get a chance at anything higher than the situation in which they would be kept against their will. Over the decades of the twentieth century, there have been great improvements and social reforms like the outlawing of child labour, compulsory schooling, improved working conditions in factories, better pay, paid holidays, health services, accommodation to let at reduced rents and so much more. Many people from the “lower” classes had the opportunity to climb into the “middle” class, take advantage of career opportunities and be able to afford better housing, transport and labour-saving devices at home, a wireless and TV set and all the mass-produced consumer goods people can buy these days – just like the computer I am using to write this article.

This progress is owed to many in the nineteenth century who suffered for their consciences and their combat for the good of less advantaged people. Our friend takes a look at changes in the Church from the hegemony of a clerical ‘aristocracy’ (often recruited in the old days from the Aristocracy, and still is in many places) to a popular Church in which the people participate in everything from church services to administration and decision-making.

I like his appraisal of the Romantic movement as a reaction from cultural elitism to the idea of the common people as the ‘salt of the earth’. The Catholic Church, at least at the level of the Roman Curia and diocesan sees, resisted the movement for democracy. In my way of life, I spend my entire life with ordinary people, mostly non-believers or believers but having suffered from the Church. That is the way we are at the sailing club or the choral group in which my wife and I sing. Most of our friends are ordinary folk. What do they think about the Catholic Church? Invariably, they say that the clergy are out of step with our times – especially on this question of democracy and popular participation. Vatican II was right in its intuition of defining its theology of the Church as the people of God. Ironically, this is one aspect of the Council that was not fully implemented.

Should we accept ‘liberation theology’ as something normal or ideal? I am sceptical insofar as its ideology may set out to enslave instead of freeing as its name implies. The experience of Communism in Eastern Europe and Russia proved that it is not immune from the effects of human nature and corruption. 1989 marked an emancipation for many people against totalitarianism every bit as bad as Hitler’s Nazi ideology. However, the Acts of the Apostles describes a most perfect expression of communism, as does the monastic life in which no individual may possess property but receives the use of what he needs from the Abbot who governs the community collegially – by asking advice from the monks in Chapter.

I have known some real Communists here in France, who refused to own property, or compromised with property ownership as little as possible. They are not always atheists, but they eschew religious systems that support capital and class. Many of the assumptions in Marxism are erroneously based on a sinless human nature, but I have to admire such people with principles and courage of their convictions. They have much in common with monks! Many who fought against the Nazi occupation in France were Communists and Trade Unionists.

We read interesting observations about the double standards of what sometimes calls itself progress and liberalism, but in reality represents vested interest and class distinction. There may be a growing left-wing movement in America as there was in Europe in the 1940’s – in reaction against the Right and the horrors of the war and the Occupation. There I agree with this article, and I find it most thought-provoking. Vatican II took place in this aftermath of World War II, and it became clear that the Catholic confessional state was a thing of the past, discredited by the disgraceful way some bishops had ‘collaborated’.

I don’t think Communism and Marxism are the way, with their philosophical fallacies about they way they understand human nature and negate the spiritual soul. The proof is that Communism as it was enforced by the Soviet State and the KGB was no more respectful of human rights than Nazism. Under Stalin, they killed millions – and ‘dissident’ people were still being sent to the Gulag as political prisoners in the 1980’s. Indeed, after the war, many opportunistic Nazis joined the Communists in East Germany and other countries. No abjuration or conversion were needed!

However, there are noble principles to aspire to like “lay monasteries” where families put everything in common. The Christian Gospel is true Communism – a call both to social justice and peace in the world, but also the lifting of our souls to the Kingdom.