Scripture teaches us that it is the truth that makes us free. But truth demands our assent which limits our liberty to choose its opposite- Thus it is that St. Paul warns us against those who would 'promise man liberty, while themselves the servants of corruption’ and St. Thomas teaches us that 'the end at which the devil aims is the revolt of the rational creature from God… This revolt from God is conceived as an end, inasmuch as it is desired under the pretext of liberty…’ When traditional man is offered 'liberty,’ he remembers well the Homeric warning: 'Beware of Trojans bearing gifts.’ And so it is that we shall examine some of the basic precepts held in common by both socialism and liberation theology, remembering also that while names change, false ideas persist.

The creation of a new man:

Both liberation theology and socialism dream of creating a 'new man,’ a 'new humanism’ and a 'new order of society.’ Now, the promise of perfecting man qua man, and of perfecting society without God is nothing other than a rephrasing of the serpent’s offer- if you eat the apple, 'ye shall be as gods.’ Only individuals who see man as the product of evolutionary forces can envision such an absurdity. How is it possible for anyone to 'create’ a man other than God Himself did, a man made in His own image, yet free to sin and fall. Man, like sin, can change his style, but never his nature. He may be 'made new’ by the laver of Baptism, but even then he carries with him the effects of his 'fall.’ Neither communists, nor 'society’ nor evolution can create a new and different kind of man, for who, by taking thought can add one cubit to this stature?

Historical determinism is another absurdity:

Based on the false principles of progress and evolution coupled with Hegelian dialectics, it assures us that the future inevitably belongs to socialism. It reduces everything to the historical dimension and implicitly denies that man has free will. At the same time it preaches that man has the freedom and obligation to bring about the socialist Parousia. But if the utopian promise is inevitable, why is it that coercion must be used? 'Why must millions be slaughtered or enslaved in 'gulags,’ children brainwashed in schools and millions of dollars spent on propaganda? Why must the proletariat – 'the most advanced and far-sighted segment of society’ – be 'conscientized’ and brought to the point of rebellion?

Class warfare and rebellion is another principle that violates both Christian doctrine and common sense. Every normal society recognizes differences in human ability, and exists for the benefit of all its members. Christ did not come for the economically poor, but for all men, be they publican or sinner. It is a matter of historical fact that the proletarian segment of society has never led or achieved a revolution. Like those who cried for the Crucifixion of Christ, they have always been tools in the hands of professional agitators – usually the half-educated and poorer bourgeoisie. And not surprisingly, their victims have been the innocent and their benefactors Barabases. Class warfare has been to some degree eliminated in socialist countries such as Cuba and China. The unfortunate workers in these lands know that, if they protest they will be shot. The proletariat in all these nations still work in dehumanizing factories for minimal wages Dispossessed of all property, they are further deprived of the right to change employment, refused the privilege of forming independent unions, and forbidden to strike. In not one of the 40 or so socialist societies which existed until only recently was the lot of the workers improved over that which existed prior to the time when 'the dictatorship of the proletariat’ was established.

The elimination of private property;

Based on the Masonic Roussauist theory that all property is theft, and therefore sinful, those who hold this view forget that man has a natural right to possessions. As Pius XI said, 'the right to own private property has been given to man by nature, or rather, by the Creator Himself.’ Not one line of Scripture and not one statement of the Church Fathers teaches that private property is intrinsically evil. The early Christians – the good thief apart – were not communists. They shared of their surplus under no coercion and loved one another regardless of socio-economic status. It is a matter of common sense that man is entitled to the just fruits of his labor and that, if he works harder than his neighbor, he is entitled to greater rewards. Every communist nation has had to give recognition and come to terms with this principle.

But far more terrible is the fact that an individual deprived of all private property is turned into a slave. He either does what he is told or he starves. As Pius XII said, 'positive legislation regulating private property may change or more or less restrict its use, but if legislation is to play its part, it must prevent the worker… from being condemned to economic dependence and slavery which is irreconcilable with his rights as a person.’ In Russia, until the recent breakdown of the communist order, those who did not do as the Party wished, lost their jobs, their homes, and indeed all income. If they were unable to show that they were productive members of society for three months, they would be declared to be 'parasites’ and arrested. Once this occurred, it was off to the 'gulags’ where apart from being slaves, they were 're-educated.’

Authority and power in the people:

Scripture tells us that all authority comes from God. Thus it is that those in power are obliged to enforce God’s laws. The people may of course elect their leaders on the assumption that those chosen are just and capable, and thus can apply God’s laws in an appropriate manner. But to believe that authority comes from the people is absurd because nihil agit in seipsum. Socialists claim the source of their authority is the people – or at least the working man. Yet, once in power they inevitably become dictators of the most despicable sort. This is because it is impossible for the state/leader which controls what the people think, read, see, hear and have access to, not to mention controlling the election process, to ever really rep-. resent the masses. Not believing in God or any transcendent moral order, controlling what the people think and then claiming to represent these same people, they have no choice but to act as the sole source of authority. This further explains why they must destroy the family and religion – alternative sources of authority are never acceptable. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat’ was nothing but a bad joke as the events of the last few years have shown.

Coercive utopianism is the inevitable result:

Human nature is not as malleable as these 'social engineers’ would like. And so when in control, communists become coercive, often concluding that one generation must be sacrificed to create an ideal system for the next. As Lenin said, 'you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.’ In accord with socialist principles, man must be re-educated to accept his proletarian, property-less and classless status. Those who resist such 'progressive’ and 'scientific’ demands are placed in camps and subjected to every Pavlovian technique known to man. And so it is that every socialist dictatorship – the so-called 'dictatorships of the people’ – results in the establishment of prison gulags and massive military establishments. Those who doubt this must explain why Mao Tse Tung is estimated to have liquidated between 30 and 60 million people; why the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot decimated over a quarter of the Cambodian population, slaughtered all but 2024 of 23,661 teachers, and only allowed 600 out of 182,000 Buddhist monks to survive; why over 3,000 Vietnamese boat people risked their lives every month to escape their homeland 10 years after socialism was established in Vietnam. Liberation theologians and socialists may dismiss such questions as 'bourgeois logic,’ but surely the millions of victims who fled these worker paradises are not all 'running dogs of capitalists.’ Ask a Solzhenitsyn.

The Classless society:

A society in which the diversity of qualifications and hereditary aptitudes are ignored or destroyed, in which everyone is reduced to the level of property-less proletarians, is both a monstrosity and an absurdity. Even if, thanks to progress and industry, goods are plentiful and work is reduced to a minimum, some work will have to be done. Who will clean the latrines and who will mine the coal? Who will decide how long at at what task each of us must labor? Why is it , we must ask that n socialist societies that claim to be marching towards the utopian state, the most nefarious form of class structure is enforced – that of party membership? And why does this elite – the harbingers of a new society – have separate schools, housing and hospitals and stores, not available to the proletariat? Liberation theologians should further note that this perfect classless society – a society in which men no longer have to struggle to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect – there will be no room, and indeed, no need for priests. Despite the fact that even extreme utopians do not dream of eliminating old age, illness, suffering and death, mankind will no longer be allowed the Sacraments and the consolations of religion. Clearly the Teilhardian dream of bringing mankind to 'point Omega’ will end us all in the 'nousphere.’

CONCLUSION

Socio-economic systems invariably reflect the philosophical premises on which they are based. Traditional economics was static, theocentric and sacred in nature, and based on a transcendent metaphysics. Communism, having 'no enemies on the left,’ is the end point and the complete inversion. It sees everything in the light of historical determinism; it proclaims in the words of Marx that 'man is the only supreme being for man’; it is patently secular, and is founded on the very denial of metaphysics. It is in fact a 'counter-religion’ offering its victims a false faith, a false hope, and a false charity. It is a 'Devil’s Gospel.’ Unfortunately, the more modern man separates himself from his traditional beliefs, the more he accepts the false 'opiates’ of progress and evolution, the more he sees himself as an economic and psychological animal devoid of higher intelligence and free will, the more attractive appears to him the Marxist apple.

Communism is not the dialectical antithesis of capitalism, but rather its logical progression and ultimate achievement. Sharing basically similar views as to the nature of man and reality, it is able to enforce with rigor the methodologies developed by its parent. Mankind, increasingly enslaved to economics today, will, we are promised, become totally subservient to the economic state of tomorrow. The reason why the Western and so-called democratic world still provides mankind with a modicum of security and freedom is not so much because it has progressed so far to the left, but because it has not totally divorced itself from its traditional roots.

Religious leaders, seduced by 'the spirit of our times’ and advocating an aggiornamento between religious values and socialist ideation are veritable wolves in sheep’s clothing. However well intentioned, their actions can only result in increasing the sufferings of the destitute and disenfranchised members of society and the total alienation of man. The slaves of a future utopia will have nothing but contempt and hatred for those responsible for their seduction. The idea that the Church should support and abet this 'process’ borders on blasphemy. And thus it is that the traditional Church, speaking through the mouth of Pius XI called socialism ind communism 'intrinsically evil’ and 'absolutely contrary to the natural law itself’ because, as Pius IX said, 'once adopted. it would utterly destroy the rights. property and possessions of ill men. And even of society itself.’ Pope Leo XIII, certainly no enemy of the 'working man,’ called it a mortal plague, which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin.’ Pius XI as recently as 1937 called it 'a pseudo ideal of justice, of equality and of fraternity,’ and added that 'no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.’

If mankind is to have any modicum of security and justice in this world, it must once again turn to the rational principles on which all traditional societies were based. This does not mean that we must revert to Medieval socio-economic structures, but that we must study and re-apply the metaphysical principles in new and effective ways. Monetary reforms can be introduced that limit usury and take the minting of coins away from the banks. Tax structures can be modified so as to foster the greatest possible distribution of property, and to encourage, not class conflict, but cooperation between owners and employees. The means of production can be returned to the worker. It is by no means difficult to prevent the use of land for single export crop production which benefits only a small number of individuals and to adopt modem agrarian technology to the small farm so that each nation produces more than enough for its people. Beyond this, man must be re-educated – not by Pavlovian techniques – but by means of reason, to desire to make only those things which are both necessary and worth creating. Above all, man must learn once again what he is and why he was created. Finally, Christians who pray that God’s Kingdom may come on earth should recognize that such will never occur until God reigns in our hearts, in our families, and by extension, in society. Viva Christo Rey Long live Christ the King.

A NOTE ON THE ROOTS OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Unfortunately Liberation theologians and socialists in general can find much to support their attitudes in positions taken by the post-Conciliar Church. Vatican II not only gave its stamp of approval to the false concepts of evolution and progress, it also promoted the idea that salvation was a historical and communitarian process. Thus it advocated the development of a 'new humanism’ and the unity of all men under the title of 'the unity of the People of God.’ Beyond this it advocated a 'wholesome socialization’ towards which man was inevitably progressing, and refused, despite multiple requests by some 400 attending fathers, to condemn communism. John XXIII made the post-Conciliar position absolutely clear in stating that 'the Church is not a dam against socialism,’ and further emphasized in his first Encyclical in so far as 'all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity, there are no communities that that. are superior by nature and none that are inferior by nature. All political communities are of equal natural dignity since they are bodies whose membership is made of these same human beings.’ No wonder the left was delighted.

Paul VI held to similar views. He was almost effusive in his praise of both China and Cuba. As he said in a special audience in April of 1976. 'the world will march irresistibly towards the new order and the new man for which we all long. Cuba will play its part, joyful. and disinterestedly in this grand joint undertaking.’ John Paul 11 has occasionally criticized the excesses of communism as such. One of his first acts after his election was the re-appointment of Cardinal Caseroli – the originator of détente – as his Secretary of State. In his encyclical Laborem Exercens he speaks of satisfactory socialization’ with approval, and in his speech at Pueble he publicly stated that he had no objection to the expropriation of private property, providing it was 'Correctly carried out.’ When, one must ask, was it incorrectly carried out. Certainly not in Poland where the Church lost all her schools, colleges and hospitals – the gifts of the faithful – for Cardinal Wyszynski stated at the time that 'in a communist country the Church should renounce its rights to private property.’ Lest there be any doubt, he bluntly told Archbishop Romero before his death that 'the Church’ – his Church – 'was not anticommunist.’

Much has been written about recent condemnations of liberation theology on the part of the Vatican. It should be clear that socialism as such was never condemned, but only certain aspects of this nefarious and anti-Christian doctrine. Specifically these are:
(1) the attempt to replace Christ by the elevation of a social class, or by placing the poor at the center of Christianity;
(2) the de-divinizing of Christ by making, him, not the unique Son of God, but a model exemplar of a political revolutionary;
(3) the appeal to and violence which is seen as hindering the unification of all Christians
(4) objection to the horizontation’ of the Scriptures – interpreting them only on the socio-economic level, and
(5) attacks upon the hierarchical structures of the Church. While one can laud such criticisms, it is clear that it is a classical case of attacking the symptoms and not the disease.

FOOTNOTES