THE POPE AND SOCIALISM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 133, 8 June 1931, Page 6

THE POPE AND SOCIALISM

i t THE LATEST ENCYCLICAL I 1 I • hi his recent encyclical, ihc Pope t declared that “no one can be a good) Catholic and simultaneously a true Socialist.” Critics of this declaration, including members of New Zealand ‘ Labour (Socialist.) Party have said that it depends on the interpretation of the . words “Socialist ” and “Socialism. *’ After examining numerous socialistic authorities, the shortest definition seems| : t<> be “the nationalisation of themeansj of production, distribution and ox I’liange,” in other words the complete • elimination of private enterprise and ownership. This objective is the offi | c’al objective of the Labour Socialist!' Parties in England and New Zealand, and is also the declared objective of the all Communist Parties. These socalled “Labour.” but really Socialist, mirtics arc officially antagonistic to the Communists, but the chairman of the Independent Labour Party in England at the recent conference (Mr Maxton. M.P.i. declared that “There is no actual difference in principle between the Communists and ourselves. There is only a difference in tactics.” Again the leader uf the New Zealand Labour (Socialist ' Party has declared himself to be a “Marxian Socialist.** therefore 1 iu testing the Pope’s declaration it will help us to arrive al the truth, if we refer to the writings ami opinions of loading Socialists and Communists, always remembering that the principles of the two are admittedly the same. Karl Marx denounred religion as “ the opium of the people. ’* Herr Bebel. Kader of the German Social Democrats. O’ May 1886, declared that •‘Chris ‘i.’iiEt’* and Socialism stand towards each other as fire and water.” ItoLerf. !’.latchford has often emphasised the fundamental incomual ability of tlu Chrislinii and the Socialist ideals. So-

cialism really has no spiritual background, everything it does affects only the limited surface of life. This justifies the Pope’s statement that “The Christian doctrine lays down that man’s life is dedicated to God’s glory, whereas Socialism places the individual wellbeing first.” As to the Communist authorities, itis only necessary to quote from the “ A.B.C. of Communism” by Bucharin, “Religion and Communism are incompatible both theoretical]v and practically.” 1! is often asserted by Socialist j speakers that lo be a true Christian one ! must Lie a Socialist, and that the New Testament is a Socialist book. This is absurd and misleads many earnest people. who are what may be called “ hu- | manists. ” to support Socialism with- [ out full knowledge of what. Socialism, with its call to class war, implies. Christianity does not involve the elimination of private enterprise and ownership. Indeed, it fully recognises both. Nor does it involve class antogonism. It is rather concerned with ethics and the proper use Of the tilings of this world to help towards spiritual welfare. It is possible for a Christian to hold that jmli'.ic ownership is desirable, but to identify public ownership and ‘•liminat ion of private enterprise with Christianity is quite another thing. A proper view would be to say that Christianity begins with individuals and puts the responsibilifv for right conduct «»n the shoulders of earh. while Socialism seeks to abolish individuality in. favour of a system of collectivism. Tlir individual is relieved of all moral responsibility. For Socialism to exist side by side with an organised church is impossible, when tha‘ church • laims the supreme allegiance of its members, and makes calls on their properly for its support. Also its philosophy of man. the avoil<l am] God i- s wholly i rit'coiir ilr Ide with the Socialist <'oDinmnist, creed. > ('on1lil "1 ed by the New Zealand Welfare League').