We have heard the new pope speak of his friendship with a few Marxists who he found were good men. I assume he has made these personal judgments based on the Marxists’ professed compassion for the poor.
Marxists and liberals always express their devotion to the poor, the downtrodden and the underclass. They expressively vow to use the powers of violence, revolution and eventually big government to right all the evils of nature, individualism and its economic expression capitalism.
Yet they generally do not believe in God, his teachings or his church.
So how can they be good?
Is a compassion for the poor all they need?
The pope has flirted with Liberation Theology. His native Argentina is riven with its thinking, so it is not a stretch to assume he has had some interest in its teachings, even though his two predecessors condemned it as inconsistent with Christianity.
These liberationisti believe that human salvation is collective and is attained primarily through a love of the poor.
What about the Nazis?
They were socialists just as the Marxists so why have we demonized them as the perfect historical ogres?
No, they did not express a specific love of the poor. To the contrary the poor of the world were probably lumped in with the useless eaters, those who were deemed unworthy of life.
But Marxists also have always had their death panels that were designed to terminate the people who stood in the way of the revolution. I am quite certain the religious poor would not be acceptable in their future earthly kingdom.
So killing people seems to be a useful method for both Marxists and Nazis though only the Marxists seem to be good.
Yet maybe good is in the eye of the beholder and can have many different definitions that would qualify both the Marxist and the Nazi.
Their thinking seems predicated on what Pope Benedict called a dictatorship of relativity.
Most modern autocrats who despise Christian morality have to create a substitute morality to fill the moral vacuum they create when the old morality falls by the wayside.
They see the necessity to contrive a set of moral principles that would define good for that particular society whether it be Marxist, Nazi or even capitalist.
To the Marxist the main commandments would be a love of the Revolution and compassion for the poor.
But in essence that love for the poor seems to be just reserved for the generic poor.
One could say that like cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt, they loved humanity but hated individual people.
If individuals, who happen to be poor do not accept the revolution and the party as their savior and lord, they will not live in its earthly paradise.
The same is true of the good Nazi. They believed passionately in the Vaterland and the purity of its blood. Theirs was a religion based on Land und Blut–land and blood, while the Marxists had their religion of man.
People who did not fit in had to suffer their wrath but they were good to their own kind. I have read stories about what good family men many of them were and even Hitler was kind to children and animals. He never smoked, was a vegetarian and believed in gun control for the masses.
These latter ideas are all part of what has become an emerging social religion in this country.
President Barack Obama has joined in this debate. Religion does not seem to be part of his make-up. During his peripatetic life he has experienced many kinds of religious influence, starting with the atheism of most of his immediate family.
In Indonesia with his mother and step-father as a young boy he studied Islam and even attended a Catholic school for a short time. In Chicago he joined the Church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his Black Liberation Theology was a mere subset of Marxist praxis and indicative of Obama’s deep commitment to racial socialism and Marxism.
I really don’t know how Obama could call himself a Christian when there was very little of Christ in Wright’s teachings.
It was Obama himself who said that the religion of America had become a practical atheism.
So to carry on with my theme can an American atheist be a good person?
I know many of them do think they are good people while they demonize Republicans, prolifers, anti-gun control advocates and anyone else who has the effrontery to challenge their moral and political system.
I might add that in my personal travels I have met a few self-admitted atheists who seemed at face value to be good people. But I doubt their goodness sprang from their denial of God’s existence. More than likely they had subconsciously adopted from either their life experiences or professional training.
One self-declared atheist in particular, who used to call my radio show years ago, was adamantly and intellectually convinced abortion was a moral good for women yet he would do chores and errands for his aging mother.
When I told him that I thought he was doing the work of sainthood, he thanked me for seeing some good in him. I surmise that would hold true of many others in his category as well.
Since the 1950s this kind of thinking, which harkens back to the French Enlightenment, has based morality, not on the ethos of Jesus Christ and his Church but on a self-contrived system of thought that has evolved from the science of man.
It was a 16th century renegade Catholic and a convert to Calvinism Pierre Bayle, whose writings argued that religion and morality should be separate. Bayle was not an atheist, at least not an open one, yet he believed that atheists though they might have a sticky time of it in the afterlife, could be as moral as anyone. I would also surmise that many Americans would second this idea.
His thinking fascinated many of the Enlightened thinkers into the 18th century, such as Hume , Voltaire, Spinoza and Leibniz.
According to Bayle all one had to do is be a good citizen to be a moral man.
This idea is certainly a dominant one in American society.
Many people, including millions of American Catholics would prefer be called Catholic Americans for their acceptance and even promotion of Obama’s secular values rather than American Catholics.
To Obama morality does not come from God or some other deity but from man, more specifically government men and by extension the culture they create.
So a society that reveres abortion on demand, promiscuous sex, drug use, divorce, and homosexuality can develop an ethos based on those life styles and actions.
This essentially had been the goal of the French Revolution, which first sought to destroy the Church, the crown and the middle class or bourgeoise.
Its progressive heirs, such as liberals and Marxists, have labored to destroy the family, the Christian church and private property or capitalism. It would seem that they are winning.
These targets are all the historic enemies and sinners against the new morality of big government.
Under the progressive aegis Marxists, abortionists and non-smokers can be considered good people. All others must bow before these secular demigods and ask for the government’s forgiveness for their sins.
Since Nazism has not been redeemed, even though many of its teachings have become part of the new culture, they could not be considered good by this relative morality.
However had Germany won the war instead of Soviet Russia than we would probably be talking about the Good Nazi instead of the Good Marxist.