How compatible is revolutionary leftism is with Roman Catholicism?

[Black_Rose]

I attended a noon Mass last Sunday since I decided to walk there for exercise and see the autumn foliage as it was about three miles from where I live. (Damn, I didn't witness the defeat of the Packers, not that I am an ardent NFL fan.)

This thread is not intended to denigrate the Catholics among the revolutionary left or Catholic theology. To me, it seems that their acceptance of liberal democracy and promotion of the "theology of the body" seems to divert one's focus from legitimate economic grievances. In this case, the abolition of the promiscuous "culture of death" is now the primary political foe while the political economy of capitalism becomes tolerable or even obligatory. I must say that during the service, there were no explicit calls for political action, such as voting for the Republican Party.


Below is a summary and commentary of the service I attended that inspired me to write this...
====

The parish, which I am not going to explicitly name or reveal its location, looked like a typical RC Church, although the building seemed have square dimensions as opposed to a typical rectangular nave. Notable features included a painting of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan River on the left of the sanctuary, at the pulpit was an alpha and omega (a reference to the end of Revelation) with a cross, the crucifix at the center of the sanctuary also included a brass representation of grain and grapes behind it, and the stations of the cross on walls perpendicular to the sanctuary. At the entrance, there was a few bulletin boards - which included topics about a pro-life ministry, juvenile and adult catechism classes, a flier soliciting canned food donations, and one about the molestation scandal - the program for the noon Mass, a mobile bookcase of hymnals, and a children's Biblical activity paper (which I puckishly drew the reaction that HMG-CoA reductase catalyzed (http://rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/images/meval.gif) in the vain hope that someone would recognize the biochemistry reference in one of them). In this Mass, approximately two-thirds of the available seats were occupied, and I chose to inconspicuously sit in the back row as a spectator, not a participant since I had no intention of receiving the Eucharist, of the Mass, while reverently conforming with the Mass.

The salient part of the Mass was how underwhelming, unedifying, and vapid the Father's homily was to me; nevertheless, I decided to take a few notes on a printout of Henry CK Liu's article "Need for an Orderly Withdrawal Mechanism from the Euro and the Eurozone (http://henryckliu.com/page253.html)" (http://henryckliu.com/page253.html) that I read along the way so I could succinctly critique the homily later, which I doubt anyone attending that Mass will read. However, Father was a competent orator, and was able to elicit a few laughs, but my primarily criticism was not his use of rhetoric or anecdote, but the actual content of the homily.

The Gospel reading was the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26-38) and the opening of the homily, he quizzed the parish about the last verses of Paul's epistles to the Romans as the subject was about the "obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26) and the corollary is that we should surrender our lives to Jesus Christ. Father invoked Mary's life as the theotokos (one who gives birth to Christ; he didn't use the term) by conceiving Jesus through the Holy Spirit as a moral exemplar for Christians to emulate. He gave some context that as a Jew, Mary knew the scriptures, particularly Isaiah (53) that the Messiah would manifest himself as the Suffering Servant and she would endure the agony of witnessing her son suffer and die.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/citta/Bs-Pieta.jpg

Now, as a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist, I was asking myself "should I be impressed by Mary's example of her willingness to endure personal (although temporary) suffering for the sake of faithfully complying with God's plan?" The person I immediately paralleled after hearing that was Alfonso Cano, the deceased commander of FARC. For the non-MLs, my reference to Cano's life is not intended to be an endorsement of FARC's activities, strategy, or ideology; it primarily serves for this discussion as a secular counterexample to the notion that Mary's willingness to endure suffering was unique, even granting the veracity of the Gospels. Cano was certainly willing to die for the sake of the Bolivarian revolutionary and liberation of Colombia from imperialism: to sound trite and to cite Jesus, Cano lived by the sword and died by it. (Che Guevara is a less controversial and more revered figure among the revolutionary left than Cano who was willing to give his life to advance the cause of socialist revolution.)

Father fortified his message by citing James 2:26 that faith without works is dead and indeed acknowledging the necessity that internal faith must manifested itself in external action; this also is an implicit rejection of the monoergic soteriology of Lutheranism where God saves one through faith (sola fide). He offered some mundane examples on how to submit oneself to Christ such as the abnegation of premaritial sex and contraception. He made a reference to a priest in Colorado, who for the last few weeks dressed himself in a Tim Tebow (number 15) jersey; Father said he would never do that and would always wear the sacerdotal regalia (my words) during Mass, which elicited a few laughs. He also drew a few more laughs when he immediately corrected himself (presumably a rehearsed "mistake") when he erroneously claimed that Tebow was the most popular NFL QB by interjecting that Aaron Rodgers was. According to Father, the reason why that specific priest did that was to draw attention to the fact that Tebow is a model Christian since he publicly stated he would abjure the pleasures of sexual intercourse before marriage, despite being a successful stereotypical alpha male with access to plentiful women. (Matt Prater should get some of the credit too.)

He made a reference to how a woman should be willing to raise a child she conceived despite the adverse macroeconomic climate in obedience to Christ (and the Church's life theology). He cited some saints who were murdered by Roman Emperors because they committed themselves to the Lord as virgins and were executed by the sexually frustrated emperors. His final example was the story of a captured US soldier by the Afghan insurgency refusing to renounce his faith at gunpoint and was promptly executed -the classic Rachel Scott story of Colombine. Father asserted with a tone of certitude the soldier is now in heaven - no purgatory - since he made the ultimate sacrifice, his life, out of his steadfast obedience to Christ.

Finishing the homily, the congregation was asked the rhetorical question where Mary is now: experiencing great joy, both spiritually and physically (an obvious reference to Catholic ex cathedra dogma of the Assumption of Mary) in the presence of God - the beatific vision. This reminded me that revolutionaries are not promised an attractive reward in the afterlife. The best I could hope for is to be remembered in posterity as a courageous woman who was willing to die for the sake of a socialist revolution and did this out of mercy and benevolence for the working class.

Also, during the prayers, which Father did not lead, the intentions included Congress, so it can advance the common interests of the nation, and the military. I found this risible, especially the nature of the intention is a tacit endorsement of bourgeois democracy and the moral legitimacy of imperialist institutions. From that, I deduced that my (political) kind is not welcome there, even if I do sincerely accept the tenets delineated in statements of faith such as the Nicene Creed and orthodox Catholic teaching of sexuality. The social function of that assembly seemed to primarily affirm the social and political beliefs of the parishioners, who are predominately from a middle/upper-middle class background, as I saw a few Escalades, BMWs, Lexuses, and Audis in the parking lot and leaving after the conclusion of Mass, but they don't seem to be one-percenters. It seemed unlikely that anyone their shares my political views or even general scientific interests, but I am unable to socialize with my female peers since they are more interested in gossip and pedicures rather than discussing abstract and philosophical topics.

After Mass, Father briefly talked to members of the congregation. The conversations consisted of superficial persiflage and pleasantries and I was unable to approach them because of my social ineptitude as I am an autistic. I would love to discuss my beliefs with him as I assume he would be an intellectually competent collocutor, but he had to leave immediately for an adult catechism class.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i have 0 problem reconciling the two myself

[Franz Fanonipants]

but a lot of the left catholics i've known do have the problem of being liberals fully in ways you mention.

also i'm kind of an anti-clerical as a result of a lot of weaksauce, milquetoast homilies delivered by fathers who are out of touch.

e: one of the other things you need to remember is that you attended at a white, upper class church. if you went to a church that serves a different demographic you might have a different experience. the church does not really exist in singular anymore.

[NGNM85]

Roman Catholicism, Christianity, really, (Along with Islam, Judaism, etc., etc.) is completely incompatible with Libertarianism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Roman Catholicism, Christianity, really, (Along with Islam, Judaism, etc., etc.) is completely incompatible with Libertarianism.

liberal scumbag

go be REALLY WORRIED about NDAA somewhere before voting for obama again.

[OHumanista]

Depends really, you can be a catholic and a commie or anarchist. (even though it does need some reconcialiating)
Now...you can't be a half-decent revolutionary leftist if you see no problem with imposing religion, basing laws on the Bible and etc. Such is the domain of reactionary zealots. (or even more absurdly defending a leftist religious government). You also shouldn't fool yourself thinking rightist governments will not try to do what I mentioned above for their own interests.

So to make a long story short, no problem as long as you keep religion where it belongs (away from the government and politics, and in the domain of private choices and spirituality)

[OHumanista]

liberal scumbag

go be REALLY WORRIED about NDAA somewhere before voting for obama again.

Quit trolling

[NGNM85]

Depends really, you can be a catholic and a commie or anarchist. (even though it does need some reconcialiating)

No, you absolutely cannot. Christianity is completely incompatible with Libertarianism. First; because both Anarchism, and Marxism, are metaphysically materialist. Second; there is no possibility of reconciliation. I don’t know where to begin; the violent intolerance, the equally violent homophobia, the view of women as property, the endorsement of slavery, etc., etc. That book is bigoted, authoritarian, and reactionary, rendering it totally incompatible with Libertarian thought.


Now...you can't be a half-decent revolutionary leftist if you see no problem with imposing religion, basing laws on the Bible and etc. Such is the domain of reactionary zealots. (or even more absurdly defending a leftist religious government). You also shouldn't fool yourself thinking rightist governments will not try to do what I mentioned above for their own interests.

So to make a long story short, no problem as long as you keep religion where it belongs (away from the government and politics, and in the domain of private choices and spirituality)

Honestly; I think it’s kind of stupid to define oneself as a ‘Revolutionary Leftist’, because it’s a bogus designation, but that’s a whole different ball of wax.

If theists could keep their dogma to themselves, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, either. However; we can say, with relative certainty, that that is never going to happen. First of all; Christianity explicitly demands that the faithful act in accordance with their faith. Even if this were not the case, beliefs invariably shape people’s actions. It’s inevitable.

[Rafiq]

What is Roman catholicism? Religions are different in different places and reflect the material conditions of those specific places, however they are also a reflection of the interests of certain classes. For example where I live Catholicism is an instrument and an ideological reflection of the Petite Bourgeoisie.

[OHumanista]

No, you absolutely cannot. Christianity is completely incompatible with Libertarianism. First; because both Anarchism, and Marxism, are metaphysically materialist. Second; there is no possibility of reconciliation. I don’t know where to begin; the violent intolerance, the equally violent homophobia, the view of women as property, the endorsement of slavery, etc., etc. That book is bigoted, authoritarian, and reactionary, rendering it totally incompatible with Libertarian thought.



Honestly; I think it’s kind of stupid to define oneself as a ‘Revolutionary Leftist’, because it’s a bogus designation, but that’s a whole different ball of wax.

If theists could keep their dogma to themselves, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, either. However; we can say, with relative certainty, that that is never going to happen. First of all; Christianity explicitly demands that the faithful act in accordance with their faith. Even if this were not the case, beliefs invariably shape people’s actions. It’s inevitable.

I get what you mean, being atheist myself and often discriminated. But call me naive but I often extend the benefit of doubt to leftist believers. (because it generally...even if not always presumes the person is tolerant and secular in politics)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Catholicism the religion is so intimately tied to that most loathsome of ancient institutions, the Catholic Church (which has covered up physical, mental and sexual abuse of minors under its care, colluded and collaborated with the very worst elements of the ruling classes, and has actively worked against the interests of public health, among many of their crimes) that I fail to see how anyone can in good conscience claim to be a leftist revolutionary while being an active Catholic.

Can someone please explain to me how giving monetary and/or moral support to a bunch of senile old perverts, with a direct incentive to fill peoples' heads with garbage for their own gain, helps liberate the working class?

[Azraella]

Roman Catholicism, Christianity, really, (Along with Islam, Judaism, etc., etc.) is completely incompatible with Libertarianism.

Um what? It's totally possible to be libertarian(in it's original sense) and religious. In fact anarchism in specific, has a history of religious people drawing anarchist conclusions from their theologies and supporting anarchism. Hence, the reason you'll have people like Dorothy Day(a Catholic anarchist) or Starhawk(a pagan anarchist). Now if you're talking about modern libertarianism, it doesn't matter what you actually believe as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle.

[Rusty Shackleford]

should be no problem. a few of my comrades are catholic, some muslim, some jewish, some agnostic, and some atheist like me. Probably the best thing to do with it is to not make a point of ones own religion but at the same time observe and recognize aspects of others religions. For example, what is haram, what is halal, what is kosher, the importance of some holidays etc and not fucking with others for it.


Most Marxist-Leninist organizations are not shoing to shove atheism down your throat. There were one or two islamic republics in the soviet union and a jewish autonomous district/oblast.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well, any religious beliefs are incompatible with Marxism. Period. Dialectical Materialism leaves no room for beliefs in phantasms, magic, and superstitions. Can believers participate in revolutionary events? Sure -- that happened during the Russian Revolution and certainly at other times. Can a believer be a leader, or accepted into a party trying to make workers revolution? No. Does it surprise me that we even have an argument here? Yes it does.

[Azraella]

My retort to that is that politics are different than philosophy and that ideology differs from politics and philosophy.

A person who agrees with Marxist politics and is religious can exist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, any religious beliefs are incompatible with Marxism. Period. Dialectical Materialism leaves no room for beliefs in phantasms, magic, and superstitions. Can believers participate in revolutionary events? Sure -- that happened during the Russian Revolution and certainly at other times. Can a believer be a leader, or accepted into a party trying to make workers revolution? No. Does it surprise me that we even have an argument here? Yes it does.
the point is to make dialetical materialist thought the driving 'philosophy' of the party and apply it in the material world. and in the material world exists people who believe in other abstractions or ideals that must also be dealt with in a non-hostile way and these beliefs are the philosophical motivations for the way they act which in turn is how they interact with society and vice versa. society is a constantly moving and changing abstraction that cannot be changed by one action or edict or even be changed by edict or action alone.

a religious party member is not shunned for being religious, but are expected to not make a point of their religion or lack of religion and solely focus on the party and its guiding principles and program. I've gone to church as an atheist but i didnt try to turn it into a party, and a religious person doesnt join a party to turn it into a scripture reading club.

[NGNM85]

Um what? It's totally possible to be libertarian(in it's original sense) and religious.

The issue at hand is the compatibility of Libertarianism with Roman Catholicism, specifically. However; all religion is, to some degree, incompatible with Radical Leftism because Anarchism, and, incidentally, Marxism, are metaphysically materialist.


In fact anarchism in specific, has a history of religious people drawing anarchist conclusions from their theologies and supporting anarchism. Hence, the reason you'll have people like Dorothy Day(a Catholic anarchist) or Starhawk(a pagan anarchist).

Yeah, there was also Tolstoy, etc., but a handful of examples don’t mean anything. Furthermore; these misguided individuals were only able to manage this feat of cognitive dissonance by torturing these belief systems in order to force them together. It simply is not possible to be a consistent Roman Catholic, and an Anarchist, or a Marxist.

[bricolage]

i suppose it is if you reduce catholics to the papal statements and the bible and you reduce 'revolutionary leftism' to a bunch of ideas. in terms of social forces catholic workers praying to virgin mary shrines have acted in ways far close to 'revolutionary leftism' than 'libertarians' preaching about atheism.

[Azraella]

However; all religion is, to some degree, incompatible with Radical Leftism because Anarchism, and, incidentally, Marxism, are metaphysically materialist.


I have never seen that claim for anarchism. In fact, most anarchists reject dialetics and historical materialism and there are other arguments(for example anarchists recognize that other axes of oppression where Marxists believe it all is class based and that bourgie members of other oppressed classes will betray a class revolution.) Also, you are also wrong about anarchist rejections of religion. Anarchists who reject religion and are anti-theistic believe that God is intrinsically authoritarian(hence the idea that even if god existed it would have to be abolished)*. Anarchists have totally different reasons than Marxists for rejecting capitalism and state and it's based on the idea that hierarchy is bad.

*Ironically setting up a strawman of the varying conceptions of god.

Yeah, there was also Tolstoy, etc., but a handful of examples don’t mean anything. Furthermore; these misguided individuals were only able to manage this feat of cognitive dissonance by torturing these belief systems in order to force them together. It simply is not possible to be a consistent Roman Catholic, and an Anarchist, or a Marxist.

I think you're setting up a No True Scotsman Argument. The Catholic Worker for my gods' sakes is a form of Christian anarchism trying to set up farming communes based on the idea of free access communism and only recognize God as the only legitimate authority.

[Black_Rose]

Catholicism the religion is so intimately tied to that most loathsome of ancient institutions, the Catholic Church (which has covered up physical, mental and sexual abuse of minors under its care, colluded and collaborated with the very worst elements of the ruling classes, and has actively worked against the interests of public health, among many of their crimes) that I fail to see how anyone can in good conscience claim to be a leftist revolutionary while being an active Catholic.

Can someone please explain to me how giving monetary and/or moral support to a bunch of senile old perverts, with a direct incentive to fill peoples' heads with garbage for their own gain, helps liberate the working class?


What about Roman Catholicism as a religion? I mean believing that God's grace is present through the sacraments, that Jesus died for the sins of the world at Calvary, the Virgin Birth, etc. The institution is certainly flawed though, but I suggesting extracting its tenets from the institution, although the Church does assert the primacy of Peter to support its claim that it is the legitimate agent of God on Earth.

[Fawkes]

Theoretically they are completely incompatible. In fact, they're diametrically opposed (one is rooted in materialism, the other is... not). That being said, every one of us is a hundred walking contradictions, so who knows. People can reconcile some pretty unusual stuff.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have never seen that claim for anarchism. In fact, most anarchists reject dialetics and historical materialism and there are other arguments(for example anarchists recognize that other axes of oppression where Marxists believe it all is class based and that bourgie members of other oppressed classes will betray a class revolution.) Also, you are also wrong about anarchist rejections of religion. Anarchists who reject religion and are anti-theistic believe that God is intrinsically authoritarian(hence the idea that even if god existed it would have to be abolished)*. Anarchists have totally different reasons than Marxists for rejecting capitalism and state and it's based on the idea that hierarchy is bad.

*Ironically setting up a strawman of the varying conceptions of god.

Show me any god and I will show you at least one good reason not to worship that deity. Wittering about mythical "strawmen" ignores the fact that god-worship of any kind is to submit to an imaginary tyrant, made up by humans for their own purposes.


I think you're setting up a No True Scotsman Argument. The Catholic Worker for my gods' sakes is a form of Christian anarchism trying to set up farming communes based on the idea of free access communism and only recognize God as the only legitimate authority.

You're mistaking communalism for communism. How the fuck can God be a legitimate authority in the first place? He can only be that if one has bought into that crap, since God never issues orders or says any damn thing, apart from the many various and contradicting statements issued by the many different people claiming to have a hotline to the Godhead.


What about Roman Catholicism as a religion? I mean believing that God's grace is present through the sacraments,

Don't you think it's really suspicious that the vast majority of people who take that seriously were brought up among others who took that kind of thing seriously? In other words, that religion and religious practices map extremely well with one's culture? Surely if God was an entity with an actual existence independent of human minds, people wouldn't have to find out about God any more than they have to find out about the sky.


that Jesus died for the sins of the world at Calvary,

Oh, how magnanimous of him! To take on my "sins", without even fucking asking me first, and then subsequently demand via emotional blackmail (including the threat of burning forever or being "separated from god" depending on who you ask) that I luuuuurve him for that poky act of sadomasochism! Fuck that! How can you see that as anything but an obvious con job?


the Virgin Birth, etc.

Contradicts everything we know about human reproduction. How can anyone take that sort of thing on faith, unless they've been brought up in an environments where beliefs like that are protected from evidence (no matter how much they may contradict every day experience)?


The institution is certainly flawed though, but I suggesting extracting its tenets from the institution, although the Church does assert the primacy of Peter to support its claim that it is the legitimate agent of God on Earth.

The tenets flow from the institution. Even the Bible itself was basically drawn up by a religious committee. Books like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas) were not included by such committees (presumably the idea of a kiddy Jesus with more explicitly magical powers was too much for those old farts to stomach), so should they be put in or what? If I were to claim divine inspiration, shouldn't I be able to add books to the Bible? The Catholic Church certainly claims divine inspiration (or at least Godly approval) in adding their deuterocanonical books. Why can't I?

Can you see the problem here?

[Black_Rose]

I meant to add this to my recent post in this thread:

Notwithstanding the morally questionable nature of the Church throughout history (since it used its political power to promote its self-interest at the expense of others, has been captured by private interests such as the Medici family, and its support for liberal political movements such as Solidarity Movement) but what about the who allege that they experience Christ's profound love, and want to requite that love by loving him in turn, reverently worshiping him, and serving him (which would entail loving others as has he loved you, faithful obedience to his commandments, evangelization through preaching his gospel, confessing one's sins, participating in the sacraments, and prayer and meditation)? These people seem to be enthusiastically devoted to Christ instead of being apologists for the dubious positions and policies of a corruptible earthly institution. They can be revolutionary (or progressive) Catholics since it is indeed possible for one to interpret Christ's command to serve the poor by diligently advocating a revolution against the unjust economic system of capitalism or at least supporting the redistributive institutions of the modern welfare state.

My intention was not to defend the Catholic Church or its dogma, but to try to argue that the institution does not necessarily corrupt the believer and renders him/her a reactionary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I meant to add this to my recent post in this thread:

Notwithstanding the morally questionable nature of the Church throughout history (since it used its political power to promote its self-interest at the expense of others, has been captured by private interests such as the Medici family, and its support for liberal political movements such as Solidarity Movement) but what about the who allege that they experience Christ's profound love, and want to requite that love by loving him in turn, reverently worshiping him, and serving him (which would entail loving others as has he loved you, faithful obedience to his commandments, evangelization through preaching his gospel, confessing one's sins, participating in the sacraments, and prayer and meditation)? These people seem to be enthusiastically devoted to Christ instead of being apologists for the dubious positions and policies of a corruptible earthly institution. They can be revolutionary (or progressive) Catholics since it is indeed possible for one to interpret Christ's command to serve the poor by diligently advocating a revolution against the unjust economic system of capitalism or at least supporting the redistributive institutions of the modern welfare state.

My intention was not to defend the Catholic Church or its dogma, but to try to argue that the institution does not necessarily corrupt the believer and renders him/her a reactionary.

Of course not, people aren't "corrupted" by anything (although they can be just corrupt), but radical social change isn't brought about by acts of charity.

Also, there are contradictions within the Christian canon that cannot be resolved internally. Consider the question of "Render[ing] unto Caesar" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...). By what standards does one decide if that means submitting to earthly authority or not?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think you miss my point. I said that people may participate in revolutionary activities and hold religious beliefs. But in this period, one of relative quiescence, there is no room for religious believers in a Marxist revolutionary party. In a period of workers revolution, of course it will happen -- although religious beliefs would need to be fought by the education wing of the party.

It's interesting coming from a MList. You guys think that a speech can be the equivalent of an overturn of class structure of a society. Why so sanguine about religion oozing its reactionary, mystical poison into a revolutionary party?

I am not suggesting berating, shunning or harming people for their religious beliefs. But admission into a vanguard, marxist party, no. They need to be educated about modern science and dialectics. If a religious Catholic person wants to join a picket line, fine. If they want to participate in party activities, maybe it is fine. Membership? Why? In order to be a marxist revolutionary one must break with religion. I'm sorry comrades, to be so categorical, but we are talking about the most highly politically conscious layers. In a mass parties, there will be some recruits that will not have completely broken with religion. If they cannot make the break, they still should not belong.

[hatzel]

But admission into a vanguard, marxist party, no.

Good job we don't live in the 1930's so there's literally nobody of sane mind trying to get into one of those monstrosities. In fact, I can think of no finer example of Christian charity than refusing somebody entry to a 'vanguard, Marxist party,' thus sparing them from the horror of wasting their life relentlessly beating the already bare skeleton of that dead horse with a turn-of-the-century wooden spoon...there's a serious point in there somewhere, but you'll have to tease it out yourselves...

[Bronco]

I've heard the Catholic Workers Movement described as being Anarchist, but personally I think that the Roman Catholic Church is antithetical to the anti-hierarchical principle of Anarchism

Edit - wait I just realised the title says "revolutionary leftism", for some reason I thought it had specified Anarchism

[chimx]

The question isn't whether communism is compatible with catholicism, but if catholicism compatible with communism. I would certainly agree that the latter is true given the history of the church.

Roman Catholicism has evolved from a small apocalyptic tribal religion, to what is today by way of a classical slave economy to feudalism to capitalism. It has adapted itself for 2000 years to be compatible with the governments of constantine, the holy roman empire, and napoleon.

That is because the church, as part of the superstructure, shifts and changes to adapt itself to production relationships of the day and will work to perpetuate them.

Will the capitalist form of Catholicism be compatible with revolutionary leftism? Obviously not. But that form has only existed for a few hundred years of the church's 2000 year history.

[Black_Rose]

I think you miss my point. I said that people may participate in revolutionary activities and hold religious beliefs. But in this period, one of relative quiescence, there is no room for religious believers in a Marxist revolutionary party. In a period of workers revolution, of course it will happen -- although religious beliefs would need to be fought by the education wing of the party.

It's interesting coming from a MList. You guys think that a speech can be the equivalent of an overturn of class structure of a society. Why so sanguine about religion oozing its reactionary, mystical poison into a revolutionary party?

I am not suggesting berating, shunning or harming people for their religious beliefs. But admission into a vanguard, marxist party, no. They need to be educated about modern science and dialectics. If a religious Catholic person wants to join a picket line, fine. If they want to participate in party activities, maybe it is fine. Membership? Why? In order to be a marxist revolutionary one must break with religion. I'm sorry comrades, to be so categorical, but we are talking about the most highly politically conscious layers. In a mass parties, there will be some recruits that will not have completely broken with religion. If they cannot make the break, they still should not belong.

I agree with the Marxist-Leninist approach to most religion and let the believers practice in autonomy, although I can understand repression of some sects such as Calvinism.

I would imagine that the revolutionary cadre would be less religious than the general population, but I disagree that one must be "completely broken with religion" in order to be in the revolutionary vanguard. You are indeed correct that religion in general is "reactionary, mystical poison". Perhaps this is one reason why professional scientists tend to be irreligious relative to the general population. The requisite epistemology required for scientific endeavors and the proper evaluation and interpretation of scientific evidence (empiricism) is quite dissimilar to the nature of the knowledge of revealed religion. For instance, one critical difference is that religious knowledge derives its authority and legitimacy from tradition, hierarchical authority, and divine inspiration and revelation, while, in contrast, modern scientists rely on rigorous, controlled experiments that can be confirmed by independent investigators trying to repeat the work, and peer review to achieve reliability and impartiality. (I am not arguing that the contemporary system of generating and evaluating scientific knowledge is perfect, unbiased, or devoid of fraud and deception.)


Likewise, I would imagine that a revolutionary vanguard would have a similar religious demographic composition to that of modern scientists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You can be a Catholic and a revolutionary leftist. There are people out there who are currently doing things far more revolutionary than anyone on this forum yet are Catholic. It is absurd that anyone on this forum feels that they have the authority to question the revolutionary credentials of, say, the peasant guerrillas in Chiapas simply because of their metaphysical beliefs.



No, you absolutely cannot. Christianity is completely incompatible with Libertarianism. First; because both Anarchism, and Marxism, are metaphysically materialist.


Sch an intense devotion to metaphysical materialism is paradoxically idealist, if not "religious". Who cares what they believe metaphysically? As long as they accept the social and economic principles laid out they are fine. Marx isn't a prophet, and as such, being a "Marxist" should not necessarily commit one to a particular metaphysical absolutism any more than being a "liberal" or a "feudalist". As long as you accept the general themes of Marx's social and economic analysis, it is not an inaccurate description.


Second; there is no possibility of reconciliation. I don’t know where to begin; the violent intolerance, the equally violent homophobia, the view of women as property, the endorsement of slavery, etc., etc. That book is bigoted, authoritarian, and reactionary, rendering it totally incompatible with Libertarian thought. Except there's no monopoly defining what it means to act in accordance with the faith. Jewish law in many sects has moved substantially from the time of Solomon, and there are huge disagreements about it. How many Christians and Jews today wear polyester? Yet the OT is as opposed to wearing cloth made of two fabrics as it is with homosexuality. Clearly religious codes are not static, even if the texts don't change, because the religions themselves are fundamentally historical institutions.



If theists could keep their dogma to themselves, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, either. However; we can say, with relative certainty, that that is never going to happen. First of all; Christianity explicitly demands that the faithful act in accordance with their faith. Even if this were not the case, beliefs invariably shape people’s actions. It’s inevitable.Religions are going to have varying levels of difficulty in coming to exist in a Socialist society. However, because religions ultimately reflect the class interest of the membership as much as it does the values it extols, the religions will change.


also this-


Contradicts everything we know about human reproduction. How can anyone take that sort of thing on faith, unless they've been brought up in an environments where beliefs like that are protected from evidence (no matter how much they may contradict every day experience)?

Um, isn't that kind of the whole point? It's not like ancient Jews were stupid, they KNEW that a virgin birth was biologically impossible, it's what is supposed to set the messiah apart from the rest of humanity.

Not that I ever had faith in the whole virgin birth thing, but to complain about the "biological impossibility" of it is a reasonable objection when that was precisely the point which the authors of the text were going for. One part of most religions is believing things which have no explanation (i.e miracles) and it is seen as a signifier of a particularly auspicious and divine birth (for instance the Buddha, according to the myths, also had a virgin birth)

[Black_Rose]

Religions are going to have varying levels of difficulty in coming to exist in a Socialist society.

I don't think Calvinism is compatible at all with M-Lism.



However, because religions ultimately reflect the class interest of the membership as much as it does the values it extols, the religions will change.


Doesn't my description of the Father's homily in a middle to upper-middle class parish provide evidence for that?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

OK, I think I have not been clear enough -- I don't challenge the heroic credentials of peasant guerillas - nor the partisan/peasant armies in China, Yugoslavia, etc. Sitting in my comfortable chair, removed from the class struggle, it would be silly.

However, I can argue for the importance of theory and program. Now we have an issue in this thread because the term "revolutionary leftist" is ill defined. Who does that include.

I am convinced that socialist revolution will only occur in advanced industrial countries if it is made by the proletariat led by a Leninist vanguard party. No leading member of said party will be religious. Will there be some members with vaguely theist beliefs? Who the hell knows. But religion is antithetical to Marxism. It is a competing program, comrades. Oh, and for the record, after the revolution, religion will certainly be allowed (unless it tries to organize counterrevolution). The wealth and property of the church, however, would be confiscated. Let them be as spiritual as they want.

[Black_Rose]

OK, I think I have not been clear enough -- I don't challenge the heroic credentials of peasant guerillas - nor the partisan/peasant armies in China, Yugoslavia, etc. Sitting in my comfortable chair, removed from the class struggle, it would be silly.

However, I can argue for the importance of theory and program. Now we have an issue in this thread because the term "revolutionary leftist" is ill defined. Who does that include.


For the sake of this thread and in order to make nuanced distinctions, let's divide the term ("revolutionary leftists") into people who merely assent to a revolutionary political agenda if it advances their class and material interests and the revolutionary vanguard who administer and organize the revolution itself and the revolutionary state.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I've heard the Catholic Workers Movement described as being Anarchist, but personally I think that the Roman Catholic Church is antithetical to the anti-hierarchical principle of Anarchism

you're assuming that the Catholic Worker is a part of the church. it isn't. some diocese do work v. closely with the Catholic Workers, but in many diocese both the Catholic Worker and the diocese dislike each other plenty.

guys, i know you've had it up to here w/roman popery and etc. but try to remember, as i said earlier in the thread, there is no real singular church anymore.

[Franz Fanonipants]

But religion is antithetical to Marxism. It is a competing program, comrades. .

laffo competing for what? epistemological supremacy dealing w/the upside-down world of capitalism?

here's a materialist thought for you: "competing" epistemologies is a liberal lie.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think Calvinism is compatible at all with M-Lism.

what is interesting to think about on this topic is the cultural baggage on top of the religious or theological position of different churches. the mainstream of the catholic church of the early cold war was devoted to anti-communism, even though a lot of the "social justice" gospel that was popularized w/vatican ii connected church teachings more to a global proletariat.

as communists, we owe it to ourselves to understand that movements, beliefs, whatever, don't exist as pure forms floating around and contending w/each other. rather they respond to material conditions. so as a result we need to really understand that religions and situations of the religious are a complex of theological or religious thought traditions and political climate at the local level of religious roll-out.

[Ocean Seal]

As a rule of thumb you can be of any religion and still be a communist. My viewpoint is that if it doesn't impact your materialist worldview and your progressive tendencies, nor does it abate your revolutionary spirit, then religious workers are welcome. If you have problems with the terrible violence of the revolution and would rather be trampled upon by your oppressors believing that non-violence can only make you free, you will be but cannon fodder for the revolution. If you alienate women workers or turn homosexuals into scapegoats because your god mandates that you do then you have no place in this movement and serve the interests of the reaction. And of course if you believe that the premises of materialism are to be replaced with a different rapport of history then you have deluded yourself.

[Franz Fanonipants]

RedBrother - I can go w/you halfway on this one. I lived in a Catholic Worker, and although my housemates were the kind of pacifists you describe, their outrage is usually saved for the violence committed by Capital. I was an out and open Marxist during my time at the Worker and no one called me to the carpet about the "violence of revolution!" or any kind of thing.

I wonder about working with pacifists a lot, as for a time I was devoutly pacifistic. I'm not sure that we can disregard them, rather I wonder if we can display the moral supremacy of overthrowing capital to them in order to gain their support in non-military matters.