As we saw in the
previous posting on this subject, socialism — whatever it turned out to be
(depending on the particular variety espoused, promoted, or worshipped) — did
not originally begin specifically as a reaction against capitalism. Rather, it was against Christianity, most
particularly the Catholic Church, although all of the “mainstream” churches,
Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, were targeted.
 |
| Return to the Muddle Ages |
That is not to
say that what eventually became known as “capitalism” did not help create the
situation that led to the rise of socialism, but socialism from the beginning
was intended as a new religion, usually (as G.K. Chesterton hinted) under the name
of Christianity. As Chesterton described this phenomenon in his little book
on Saint Francis of Assisi, drawing a clear parallel between the Fraticelli of
the Middle Ages, and the Fabian socialists and others of the Muddle Ages,
St. Francis was so great and original a man that he had
something in him of what makes the founder of a religion. Many of his followers
were more or less ready, in their hearts, to treat him as the founder of a
religion. They were willing to let the Franciscan spirit escape from
Christendom as the Christian spirit had escaped from Israel. They were willing
to let it eclipse Christendom as the Christian spirit had eclipsed Israel.
Francis, the fire that ran through the
roads of Italy, was to be the beginning of a conflagration in which the old
Christian civilization was to be consumed. (G.K. Chesterton, Saint Francis of Assisi, London: Hodder
and Stoughton, Ltd., 1923, 175.)
Of course, where
Chesterton only hinted, Orestes Brownson let people know exactly what was going
on, and gave it to them with double-shotted guns and colors nailed to the mast:
 |
| Brownson: "Socialism would deceive the elect." |
The spirit that works in the
children of disobedience must . . . affect to be Christian, more Christian than
Christianity itself, and not only Christian, but Catholic. It can manifest
itself now, and gain friends, only by acknowledging the Church and all Catholic symbols, and substituting for
the divine and heavenly sense in which they have hitherto been understood a
human and earthly sense. Hence the
religious character which Socialism attempts to wear. . . . . [Socialism] is as
artful as it is bold. It wears a pious aspect, it has divine words on its lips,
and almost unction in its speech. It is not easy for the unlearned to detect
its fallacy, and the great body of the people are prepared to receive it as
Christian truth. We cannot deny it without seeming to them to be warring
against the true interests of society, and also against the Gospel of our Lord.
Never was heresy more subtle, more adroit, better fitted for success. How
skillfully it flatters the people! It is said, the saints shall judge the world.
By the change of a word, the people are transformed into saints, and invested
with the saintly character and office. How adroitly, too, it appeals to the people’s envy and hatred of their superiors, and to
their love of the world, without shocking their orthodoxy or wounding their
piety! Surely Satan has here, in Socialism, done his best, almost outdone
himself, and would, if it were possible, deceive the very elect, so that no
flesh should be saved. (Orestes A. Brownson, Essays and Reviews, Chiefly on Theology, Politics, and Socialism. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1852,
499-502.)
And Brownson knew
whereof he spoke. As reported by his
friend and colleague, Father Isaac Hecker, both of them former socialists, the
whole emphasis of socialism was to get rid of the Christian God and put Collective
Man in His place. This was just as
Fulton Sheen noted in his first two books, God and Intelligence (1925)
and Religion Without God (1927) . . . which got Sheen labeled a heretic
and traitor to Christ by the great Msgr. John A. Ryan of the Catholic
University of America. As Father Hecker later recalled of a series of lectures
Brownson gave when he and Brownson were still
socialists and before their conversion to Catholicism,
 |
| Fr. Isaac Hecker |
At bottom [Brownson’s] theories
were Saint-Simonism, the object being the
amelioration of the condition of the most numerous classes of society in the
speediest manner. This was the essence of our kind of Democracy. And Dr. Brownson undertook in these lectures to bring to bear
in favor of our purpose the life-lessons of the providential men of human history. Of course, the life and teachings of our
Saviour Jesus Christ were brought into use, and the upshot of the lecturer’s
thesis was that Christ was the big Democrat and the Gospel was the true
Democratic platform!
We interpreted Christianity as
altogether a social institution, its social side entirely overlapping and
hiding the religious. Dr. Brownson set out to make, and did make, a powerful
presentation of our Lord as the representative of the Democratic side of
civilization. For His person and office
he and all of us had a profound appreciation and sympathy, but it was not
reverential or religious; the religious side of Christ’s mission was
ignored. Christ was a social Democrat,
Dr. Brownson maintained, and he and many of us had no other
religion but the social theories we drew from Christ’s life and teaching; that
was the meaning of Christianity to us, and of Protestantism especially. (Walter
Elliott, The Life of Father Hecker. New York: The Columbus Press, 1891, 20.)
Of course, Fr.
Hecker completely repudiated socialism of any kind when he became a
Catholic. As he recounted,
 |
| Fr. McGlynn: Excommunicated for disobedience. |
But, as for my part, at the time
Bishop Fitzpatrick wanted me to purge myself of communism, I had settled the
question in my own mind, and on principles which I afterwards found to be
Catholic. The study and settlement of
the question of ownership was one of the things that led me into the
Church, and I am not a little surprised
that what was a door to lead me into the Church seems at this day to be a door to lead some
others out.* But when the bishop
attacked** me about it, it was no longer with me an actual question. I had settled the question of private
ownership in harmony with Catholic principles, or I
should not have dared to present myself as a convert. (Rev. I.T. Hecker, “Dr. Brownson
and Bishop Fitzpatrick,” The Catholic
World, April 1887, 3.)
* Fr. Hecker was referring to Father Edward
McGlynn, with whom he was well acquainted and who would be excommunicated for
disobedience on July 4, 1887 for refusing to go to Rome at the command of Pope
Leo XIII to explain his adherence to the theories of the agrarian socialist Henry
George. McGlynn was not reinstated until
he promised to go to Rome, accepted Rerum Novarum, and apologized to the
people he insulted.
** “Questioned”; Fr. Hecker used
the word “attack” in a different sense than readers today would take it. That Bp.
Fitzpatrick was not “attacking” him in today’s sense is demonstrated by the
fact that Fr. Hecker described Bp. Fitzpatrick’s conversation as “bantering,”
and noted that he had a small problem trying to decide when the bishop was
being completely serious.
 |
| Chesterton: socialism, modernism = muddle-headed |
For two hundred
years socialists and modernists — the same thing, according to Chesterton (G.K.
Chesterton, “There Was a Socialist,” G.K.’s
Weekly, May 10, 1930; cf. Ubi Arcano,
§ 61) — have tried to assert that socialism is the only true Christianity. For nearly as long, the Catholic Church has
worked to counter what Fulton Sheen called socialism’s “religion without God.”
Being anti-capitalist
does not, therefore, necessarily make one a socialist, any more than being a true
socialist necessarily makes one a good Christian. Just the opposite, in fact, if we are to
believe Pope Pius XI:
If Socialism, like
all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have
never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar
to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism,
Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a
good Catholic and a true socialist. (Quadragesimo
Anno, § 120.)
We will sum this
up in the next posting on this subject, conclude, and get on to more pleasant topics.
#30#