Religion from Rome: Politics from Moscow

Irish Jesuit Province

Religion from Rome: Politics from MoscowAuthor(s): Alexander BoyleSource: The Irish Monthly, Vol. 77, No. 907 (Jan., 1949), pp. 5-9Published by: Irish Jesuit ProvinceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20515917 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 08:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Jesuit Province is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.63 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:21:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ijp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20515917?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RELIGION FROM ROME: POLITICS FROM MOSCOW

By ALEXANDER BOYLE

THE Catholic Church has long been a thorn in the side of world

Communism. Various methods have been tried to deal with

her, from open antagonism to apparent conciliation. She has

been at one time attacked with vicious savagery, at another treated

with the greatest respect, at another entirely ignored. At each change of tactics the Party

" line

" in each country has altered in faithful

conformity to the wishes of Moscow. The appearance of two recent

Communist pamphlets on this subject brings up the old question

again?what is the Communist attitude this time ? Is it the mailed

fist or the outstretched hand ? Both have been tried and both have

been dropped. This time it is something different. A clue to the change is found in Louis Budcnz' This Is My Story.

There he tells us that in 1946 the policy for the future was to be open war on the Catholic hierarchy. This is faithfully reflected in the pamph lets Catholics and Communism and The Pope, the People and

Politics. The former is by William Gallachcr, M.P., the latter is a

composite production from the pens of Harry McShanc, Scan O'Cascy and Professor Haldanc.

In both Catholicism is divided under two heads?the part that

relates to one's duties (Mass, the sacraments, etc.), and the part that is unjustly usurped by the rulers of the Church. These latter,

" from

the Vatican down to the rawest bishop," as the author of Juno and the Paycock elegantly phrases it, issue directives to the Catholic

workers which have no claim on their obedience as Catholics. They are portrayed as belonging to a different caste, one that is naturally concerned with the retention of the status quo, not because it is

morally sound but because it enables them to hold on to the wealth and influence they have acquired by pandering to the ruling classes in every country and throughout the ages.

With characteristic skill, no time is wasted in attacking the

preaching or practice of individual priests. Both McShanc and Gal lacher go straight for the Papal Encyclicals. Both Rerum Novarum and Cuadrag?simo Anno arc quoted and the case put forward that

5



IRISH MONTHLY

these are class pronouncements and as such have no claim to the

obedience of the Catholic working man.

The technique of confusion is to be seen at its best in this respect, as in other Communist publications not directed to the faithful of the

Party. Both articles are a hodge-podge of rhetorical questions in

place of statements, and where statements are made, they are either

highly doubtful deductions from what has gone before or lack any

documentary proof whatever. But in both articles one point is made, and it is that point which it is hoped will remain in the mind of the

reader like a hook in the bait for the unwary fish.

Thus Gallacher, after a consideration of Rerum Novarum, says : " What does it mean ? It means that an Encyclical is a political

document that has nothing whatever to do with the religious faith of a

Catholic."

And again, in reference to a statement in the same Encyclical? " This may be good or bad Toryism, but it has nothing whatever to

do with the Catholic faith."

McShane, in an article which reads more like a favourable review of the Papal Encyclicals than anything else, so inept is his approach to the problem, yet manages to slip in the statement:?"It should be

understood, however, that the Encyclicals are not supported by all

Catholic workers." This is designed to make the uninstructed Catholic think that he is

perhaps in the minority. There is hardly any more fatal conclusion for the modern man to draw. Right or wrong he must be in the

majority. That is the spirit of the age. Much play is made with the names of O'Connell, Wheatley and

Connolly. The argument is designed to place the Rescript which pro yoked O'ConnelTs phrase about taking

" his religion from Rome but

not his politics "

on the same level as the Encyclicals. Both the latter and the purely local stand taken by the Glasgow clergy towards

Wheatley are also considered as being generically the same. The moral to be drawn is that the teaching of the Encyclicals is liable to error and has not the claim on the allegiance of the working man that the Church's other teachings have?e.g. with reference to the Mass and the Sacraments or the ordering of his private life.

It is inferred, then, that Communism has no interest in the ordinary religious life of the Catholic as long as he is allowed to have a free choice in the field of

" politics

" without interference from the Church.

6



COMMUNIST TECHNIQUE

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The technique of dis

crimination is no new one. The enemies of the Church have always attacked the clergy first.

" Pu' doon the rookeries and the craws will

flee awa' ", said John Knox about the monasteries. The pattern is

clear in the heightened penalties imposed on the clergy, as compared with the laity, in every piece of anti-CathoUc legislation from Penal

days until modern times. If you want to steal the flock it is a waste

of time to kidnap each individual sheep. Once the shepherd and

his dog are out of the way, the sheep must go wherever they are

driven. In these days of universal education and an en?ghtened laity, the primary importance of the teaching part of the Church is often

slurred over. If CathoUcs are not always as clear on this matter as

they might be, the Communists are under no such iUusions.

Is it then true that CathoUcs, or for that matter Christians in general, have nothing to fear from Communism in the unrestricted practice of

their more private duties ? So far is this from being the case that it

does not take wide reading in Communist literature to reaUze that

there is today no more deadly enemy of all we mean by reUgion than the Communist Parties of the world. Over a century of Communist

expansion, from Marx's doctrine that re?gion is the people's opium, inscribed on the wall of the City Hall, Moscow, after the 1917 revolu

tion, to the present day, the Uterature of Communism is full of hatred of and contempt for any and every manifestation of the religious spirit.

For Marx and Engels re?gion was simply the reflection of the

economic processes of the time and varied with them from age to age. Just as the slave economy of the Roman Empire, the feudaUsm of the

Middle Ages and the bourgeois capita?sm of the modern era were

merely temporary phenomena destined to be replaced by the socializa

tion of the means of production, distribution and exchange, so also the

re?gious sentiments of these various ages were due to give way before the worship of the omnipotent State. The collected writings of Lenin on the subject of reUgion breathe the fiercest hatred for it in any form.

He states categoricaUy that it can have no place in the heart of a Com

munist, whose beliefs are founded on the doctrines of materiaUstic atheism.

There is little to quote from Staun on the subject : but, then, one does not ask a notorious housebreaker for a written statement of his views on private property. Marx, Engels and Lenin were not in

7



IRISH MONTHLY

power when they uttered their opinions on religion. They had no

other way of showing how they regarded it. The record of religious repression in the countries under Soviet control, since the death of Lenin and the ascendancy of Stalin, speaks for itself. Everywhere we find the same pattern. There is free

dom for anti-religious but none for religious propaganda. As is

obvious, the interpretation of the word "propaganda" can be made a very elastic one. For example the teaching of the truths of

Christianity by parents to their children can be viewed as religious propaganda and so comes under the decree of 8th April, 1929, which was repeated in the Soviet Constitution of 1936. The

teaching of religion is forbidden in the schools. All schools become public property. Every administrative department in

the country, including education, is under the control of the

Communist Party, who are all vowed to militant atheism.

Religion on a national basis is split up into local societies

which must be approved first by the local commissariat before they can function. Several local congregations had to close their churches

because of the high ad valorem taxation levied on them. Others were

requisitioned on the plea of shortage of building accommodation or

turned into museums. Not unmindful of providing a safety valve for

such heroic spirits as still clung to their religion in Russia, the

Orthodox Church was made into a department of the State, subservient to it in every detail. One has only to read The Truth About Religion

in Russia?issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1942?to realize the

sorry position of the Orthodox Church in Russia. If this is the posi tion of a religious community approved or at least tolerated by the

State, what is the position of the Catholic Church in the countries

behind the Iron Curtain? Indeed the truth that emerges from these

pages is not that the Orthodox Church is being allowed to function

freely as an outlet for the religious aspirations of the people of Russia, but rather that it is a Church in name only, far surpassing in its shame

and degradation the condition of any of the "

national "

churches

created by the Reformation.

Some idea of the effect of this on the male portion of the population,

always the first to fall away and the most in contact with anti-religious influences at their daily work, can be seen from the frequent photo

graphs of church congregations that are to be found in this book.

There are hardly any men to be seen. Those that can be seen are

8



COMMUNIST TECHNIQUE

nearly all advanced in years. This is borne out by a question asked

by an Associated Press correspondent of the Archbishop of Saratova.

The journalist asked: "What percentage of servicemen visit the

churches?" The answer was: "Few servicemen visit the churches." "

Servicemen "

of course at that date?24th December, 1941?meant

an appreciable portion of the adult males of Russia. "

Here and there "?says a contributor, Antonina Sokolova? "

here

and there at rare intervals among the closely packed crowds of women

is to be seen a man's grey, bared head."

Could anything be more pitiful? We know too weU how mora?ty depends on religion, its natural

guardian, to require facts and figures about the state of morals in such a community. It is hardly necessary to listen to the words of Lenin

when he lays down the "

line "

to be followed on this matter. " We deny," he says,

" all morality taken from superhuman or non

class conceptions. . . We say that our morality is whoUy subordinated to the interests of the class-struggle of the proletariat. We deduce our

morality from the facts and needs of the class-struggle of the prole tariat."

In the face of aU this evidence can we believe that any Communist

is sincere when he pretends to allow Catholics the normal practice of

their re?gion as long as they accept direction from the Communist

Party in the sphere of politics? There are many ways in which the

claim could be refuted. The false distinction between religion and

politics alone causes the rest of their argument to fall to the ground. Least of all to-day, when politics has grown to be conterminous with almost the whole of life, can such a distinction be observed. Only individual aspects of politics can be considered indifferent to the prac

tising Catholic: and these become fewer every day. In fact, so

strongly are political events influencing religion to-day that it is not a

matter of religion keeping out of politics, but rather of its entering into the political sphere to try to cleanse the Augean stables.

In any case, apart from all this, the record of the Party concerned is not such, as has been shown, to inspire confidence in any Catholic.

Would a Communist Britain refrain from the all-out attack on re?gion we see being staged in the countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Is Pol?tt as strong as Tito?

Could he, even if he wished, refuse to obey the orders of Moscow, and would he dare to throw down the gauntlet over the issue of

religion? 9



Religion from Rome: Politics from Moscow

Documents

Transcript of Religion from Rome: Politics from Moscow