BISHOP BARRON: Marxism begins by attacking faith — history shows where it ends

Many people commented positively on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at a recent security conference in Munich. What they admired most was his willingness to look beyond some of the political and economic issues that preoccupied policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic (the Ukrainian War, climate change, immigration, etc.) and to consider the cultural beliefs that both Europe and America shared.

Secretary Rubio verbally referred to Dante, the Cologne Cathedral, Shakespeare, the democratic form of government, the university system, even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones as representations of this shared vision. But then he took another step that particularly caught my attention. Both Pope Benedict XVI Very much in the spirit of both Benedict and the church historian Christopher Dawson, he observed that culture is closely linked to cult, that is, religion. In short, everything we value is connected to what we value most. And so Secretary Rubio did not hesitate to describe the Judeo-Christian faith as the deepest and most enduring source of the best in Western culture. But he concluded that when both Europe and America jointly rediscovered the resources of their common culture, they would find the commitment they both longed for.

I was encouraged to see that this call was met with sustained standing ovations. I believe even fairly jaundiced and secularized audiences sense the true spirituality behind Rubio’s rhetoric.

AOC MOCKS ‘ABSOLUTE TRAIN CRASH’ WEEKEND ON GLOBAL STAGE: ‘HE MADE HERSELF STUPID’

However, not everyone was happy with his speech. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was in Europe at the same time as Rubio, mocked the Secretary of State for his preoccupation with Western culture, which she described as “weak.” According to him, all cultures are transitory, transitory and unstable; Therefore, social analysts should focus not on minor cultural achievements but on the “material” elements of a society that manifest themselves in class struggle.

First, I would observe that it is breathtaking to claim that the culture that produces the university system, affirms the rights and privileges of the individual, and gives birth to the democratic rule of law is “weak.” But secondly, I would like to point out the frustrating Marxist nature of AOC’s formulation. Karl Marx argued that all serious students of political economy should focus their attention on class conflict between those who have power and those who do not. He also argued that the various expressions of culture (art, literature, science, entertainment, and especially religion) were merely temporary superstructural features and that their entire purpose was to maintain the economic infrastructure. So the responsible intellectual must at best accept the culture but in no way engage with it; precisely the advice AOC makes while blithely rejecting the ideological foundations of the West.

One thing I am increasingly concerned about is the prevalence of overt Marxism in the rhetoric and practice of some leaders on the Left in America. We recently heard New York City Mayor Mamdani extolling the “warmth of collectivism” and one of his top aides insisting that the people of our largest city must get used to the idea that the government can and should seize private property and confiscate the means of production.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Again, Marxism is not implied or subtle; displayed openly, unapologetically. And this should alarm every American. I would strongly encourage followers of Mamdani and AOC to talk to those fleeing the Marxist oppression of Russia and Eastern Europe, or those working under Communist oppression in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, or China today. I really doubt that any of them would gratefully accept the “warmth of collectivism.”

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

I speak out against this radicalism not only as a concerned American but also as a bishop of the Catholic Church. Marx said that the first criticism was the criticism of religion. He meant that before moving on to an evaluation of capitalist political economy, and certainly before engaging in revolutionary praxis, we must discard religion, which, as he famously put it, serves as “the opium for the masses.” We must break free from our addiction to the opiate of supernatural belief, which dulls our sensitivity to our own suffering and provides cover for the oppressive class. It is important to note that the political masters of Marxism followed their masters closely in this regard. Follow the strategies of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot, to name some of the most famous examples. Their opening move was always to attack churches.

Some may find the Marxism touted by some radical politicians today hip and refreshing, something to discuss at Upper East Side cocktail parties. Considering the historical record, I find this chilling.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BISHOP BARRON