English Socialism and Religion

Socialism is no longer a merely academic question in England; it is already with us, and those who are wise in the signs of the times tell us that it has come to stay. In accents of triumph or of apprehension, according as their sympathies are with it or against it, they assure us that in the near future Socialism will exert a powerful, if not a dominant, influence on the government of England. Under these circumstances it behoves us all to study this new factor in English life, and to settle what our own relation to it should be. It is being discussed, defended, and criticized in a thousand halls and on a thousand platforms. Its economic and political bearings are being made clear. But it has an ethical and religious side as well, and especially from this point of view it merits the careful attention of Catholics. We differ without prejudice to our faith on political and economic questions, but we wish to be at one on matters touching Catholic faith and practice.

Nor can the question of English Socialism be settled summarily and offhand. No one who knows anything of the condition of the poor in our large cities can refrain from sympathizing with the noble object of raising the condition of the poor which English Socialists profess. Some of the means which they propose for this object are above reproach. Some of their accredited writers speak with appreciation and gratitude of what the Catholic Church has done for the poor in the past. They fully acknowledge the noble part she played in the abolition of slavery, in preaching the essential equality and brotherhood of all men, and in gradually raising the condition of the serf. They confess that history shows that the Middle Ages, when the Church was all-powerful, were the golden era of the workingman; and that individualism and capitalistic exploitation of the poor came in with the Protestant reformation. English Socialists for the most part seem anxious to dissociate themselves from their forerunners. They have no sympathy with the Communistic Utopias of the early Socialists, nor with the violent remedies of those who lived a generation ago. Not without reason was Socialism in the past largely identified in men’s minds with anarchism and atheism, but modern English Socialists seem generally anxious to persuade the public that their system is something quite different. Thus Mr. Blatchford says: ‘ Another charge against Socialists is that they are Atheists, whose aim is to destroy all religion and all morality. This is not true. It is true that some Socialists are Agnostics and some are Atheists. But Atheism is no more a part of Socialism than it is a part of Toryism, or of Radicalism, or of Liberalism. Many prominent Socialists are Christians, not a few are clergymen. . . . Socialism does not touch religion at any point. It deals with laws, and with industrial and

political government.” Another Socialist writer says: “The grossest misconceptions of Socialism amongst large masses of the people still prevail. To the minds of many, even in these supposed enlightened days, the Socialist is a robber, an idle vagabond, who is seeking to steal from the thrifty their hard-earned store, or to take from the rich their rightly inherited wealth. To some others Socialism is the negation of God and of religion. It would destroy the sacred ties of marriage, institute free love, give license to immorality, pillage the churches, and put to flight the anointed servants of the Most High. Another misconception of Socialism is that which associates it with anarchy. Use the word Socialism in the hearing of these people and visions of bombs and dynamite, cruel assassinations and horrid explosions, maimed and mangled limbs and tortured bodies appear before their terrified eyes. Equally uninformed are those individuals who think that Socialism means an equal division amongst its inhabitants of the world’s wealth; or that it involves the destruction of private property. Socialism means none of these things. Not one of these is a part of the Socialist program.”²

² The Woman Socialist, by E. Snowden, p.

Individual Socialists may, indeed, have fads of their own, but the root principle of Socialism in which they all agree is, says Mr. Blatchford, this: “That the country, and all the machinery of production in the country, shall belong to the whole people (the nation), and shall be used by the people and for the people.”³ The reign of Collectivism, then, to be brought about gradually, without violence, and without injustice, is the aim of English Socialism. Mr. Belfort Bax, however, admits that “the attempt to limit the term Socialism within the four walls of an economic definition is, in the long run, futile,” although he maintains that the formula of Collectivism contains all that is “of faith” in Socialism. It is notorious that Mr. Blatchford, who was quoted above as saying that Socialism does not touch religion at any point, nevertheless found that Christianity stood in his way, and so he attacked Christianity. Other Socialists, too, generally find themselves compelled to consider the relation of Socialism to Christianity. They are aware that the official attitude of the chief Christian bodies is against them, but they stoutly maintain that the doctrine of Christ Himself and of the Primitive Church was not only not antagonistic, but was positively favorable, to Socialism.

³ Britain for the British, p. 84.

1 Britain for the British, p.

77 (1902).

2 (1907).

For example, Mr. Blatchford says: “ Christ’s teaching is often said to be Socialistic. It is not Socialistic but it is Communistic, and Communism is the most advanced form of the policy generally known as Socialism.”⁴ Mr. H. G. Wells says: “There is first the assertion, which effectually bars a great number of people from further inquiry into Socialist teaching, that Socialism is contrary to Christianity. I would urge that this is the absolute inversion of the truth. Christianity involves, I am convinced, a practical Socialism if it is honestly carried out. This is not only my conviction, but the reader, if he is a Nonconformist, can find it set out at length by Dr. Clifford in a Fabian tract, ‘Socialism and the Teaching of Christ’; and, if a Churchman, by the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam in another, ‘Christian Socialism.’ It is said that a good Catholic of the Roman communion cannot also be a Socialist. Even this very general opinion may not be correct. I believe the papal prohibition was aimed entirely at a specific form of Socialism, the Socialism of Marx, Engels, and Bebel, which is, I must admit, unfortunately strongly anti-Christian in tone, as is the Socialism of the British Social Democratic Federation to this day.”⁵

⁴ Britain for the British, p. 78.

⁵ The Grand Magazine, December, 1907, p. 701.

The Rev. S. D. Headlam writes: “There is no excuse for the Socialists and Social Reformers if, on account of the iniquities of the bishops and the follies of the patron-appointed clergy, they refuse to capture the Church, whose principles are all for Socialism; there is no excuse on the other hand, for the bishops and clergy if they allow the patrons and the plutocrats to make them false to the ideals which they were ordained and consecrated to maintain; above all, there is no excuse for Churchmen and Socialists if they refuse to co-operate with all men of good will, whether they call themselves Churchmen or Socialists, or whether they are merely members of the great Common People, in bringing about such Socialist legislation as is possible during the next seven years. The message of the Church to all these is: ‘Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?’”⁶ Mr. Keir Hardie asserts: “It would be an easy task to show that Communism, the final goal of Socialism, is a form of social economy very closely akin to the principles set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. ... For seven hundred years, says one authority, almost all the Fathers of the Church considered Communism the most perfect and most Christian form of social organization, and it was only after Christianity, from being the despised and persecuted creed of the poor, had become the official religion of the State, that opinion on this point began to undergo a change. Even then it was not until the thirteenth century that the Church came out into the open as a defender of property. . . . When the old civilizations were putrefying, the still small voice of Jesus the Communist stole over the earth like a soft refreshing breeze carrying healing wherever it went.”⁷

⁶ The Socialist’s Church, p.

⁷ From Serfdom to Socialism (1907).

Obviously there is a question here which needs an answer, an obscurity which needs clearing up. May a Christian and a Catholic, who values his religion and wishes to preserve it, be also a Socialist? And what attitude should he adopt towards this new form of Socialism which is predominant in England and which has strongly influenced the Socialist movement throughout the world?

Most English Socialists seem anxious to persuade us that their system is not anti-religious. Before studying what Catholic doctrine or the teaching of the Catholic Church may have to say on this point, it will be of advantage to know on what grounds it is maintained that this form of Socialism is not hostile to religion or Christianity. On the motion of Mr. J. R. MacDonald, M.P., the Hull Conference, 1908, declared: “That the attempt that has been made to make the labor movement appear to be antagonistic to religion is a deliberate perversion of the truth, and made for mean partizan purposes. It welcomes men and women of all religious beliefs, as it is a political movement dealing with state affairs, not religious beliefs.” This sounds very reassuring, but before concluding from such a declaration that we may remain loyal Catholics and yet give our support to the English Labor Party, which on the same occasion declared in favor of Socialism, we should do well to inquire what Mr. Macdonald understands by religion. When explaining his motion to the Conference he said that “religion was the conscious relationship between the finite and the infinite,” and of this Socialism took no cognizance whatever. To the Catholic, however, religion means much more than the conscious relationship between the finite and the infinite. The Catholic religion has much to say about our duties to God, but it also teaches that we have duties towards our neighbor as well, duties of justice, charity, and many other virtues. It has much to tell us about the rights and obligations of property, and, because it is deeply interested in the religious education of the people, it takes up a determined attitude on the question of the secularization of the schools. With his restricted view as to what religion implies, Mr. Macdonald could boldly propose his motion, but

84 (1907).

a sincere Catholic, who knows what Catholicism is, would hardly be convinced by Mr. Macdonald’s argument. ;

A declaration signed by a hundred ministers of various religious denominations was published in the papers at the beginning of 1908. These Christian ministers went further than Mr. Macdonald. They asserted that “the central teaching of Socialism is a matter of economics, and may therefore be advocated by all men, whether they be Christians or unbelievers; yet (they said) we feel as ministers of the Christian faith that this economic doctrine is in perfect harmony with our faith, and we believe that its advocacy is sanctioned and indeed required of us by the implications of our religion.” Before we allow this solemn declaration to have much weight with us, it will be well to consider the views of the signatories as to what Christianity is. One of them, Mr. Campbell, of the City Temple, and a prominent advocate of the New Theology, says in a recent publication of his: “We cannot too strongly insist that the work of Christianity is to realize the kingdom of God on earth and nothing else. Christianity has not, and never has had, any other divine commission.”

The Catholic holds on the contrary that the kingdom of God can never be realized in earth, and that the Christian Church received the divine commission to prepare her children for the life to come in heaven. A Catholic, therefore, will not be greatly influenced by Mr. Campbell’s opinion that Christianity is compatible with Socialism. Their views as to what Christianity is and what is its mission in the world are too divergent.

Nor is the instructed Catholic likely to be much influenced by the Rev. Dr. J. Clifford, who has written a very unconvincing tract for the Fabian Society on “Socialism and the Teaching of Christ.”

Another signatory, the Rev. S. D. Headlam, is an Anglican clergyman who succeeds in combining Socialism with Christianity, but only at the expense of much that has hitherto been deemed essential to it by both Anglicans and Catholics. As a specimen of what Mr. Headlam has thrown overboard we will quote what he says about the Bible. He writes: “If the return to religion is to mean a great return to the Church, then the common people must be plainly and frankly told that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God; that the religion and morality which that interesting literature records were tentative and relative; that many horrible and foolish things are recorded in it with approval which it would be un-Christian for us to approve.”⁸

⁸ The Socialist’s Church, p. 31.

Plainly the Catholic’s idea of what is Christian and what un-Christian will differ much from Mr. Headlam’s.

Mr. Keir Hardie has written a chapter on Socialism and Christianity in his recent book entitled From Serfdom to Socialism. The late chairman of the Independent Labor Party is not indeed a theologian, but as he merely professes to use what he has found in Socialist authorities on the subject, it will be worth while to quote what he says. ‘“ Christ’s denunciations of wealth,” he writes, “are only equaled by the fierceness of the diatribes which he leveled against the Pharisees. . . . Almost without exception the early Christian Fathers proclaimed that inasmuch as nature had provided all things in common, it was sinful robbery for one man to own more than another, especially if that other was in want. The man who gathered much whilst others had not enough, was a murderer. The poor had a right to their share of everything there was, which is different from the charity so common nowadays. If a man inherited wealth he was, if not a robber himself, but the recipient of stolen goods, since no accumulation of wealth could be come by honestly. To those who said that the idleness of the poor was the cause of their poverty, St. Chrysostom replied that the rich too were idlers living on their plunder. . . . My purpose in writing this chapter will have been served if I have succeeded in showing that the Socialist who denounces rent and interest as robbery, and who seeks the abolition of the system which legalizes such, is in the true line of apostolic succession with the pre-Christian era prophets, with the divine Founder of Christianity, and with those who for the first seven hundred years of the Christian faith maintained even to the death the unsullied right of their religious faith to be regarded as the Gospel of the poor.” It is unutterably sad to think of the bad passions and hatred of the Church which writing of this sort is likely to kindle among the poor and ignorant. There is an element of truth in it, but it is mixed with an intolerable amount of misrepresentation.

Unfortunately such writing is becoming very common. Christ, of course, never condemned riches or rich men as such, though he did teach that it is difficult but not impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. St. John Chrysostom and some other Fathers of the fourth century said some strong things in their sermons about the rich of their day, but they did not deny the right of private property nor does their teaching countenance Socialism. Mr. Keir Hardie’s claim to be in the apostolic succession on account of his doctrine would have earned him a place among the heretics about whom the early Fathers write. St. Augustine, the greatest of all the Latin Fathers, in his work On Heresies mentions among others the “ Apostolici”’ who, he says, ‘“‘ most arrogantly call themselves by this name because they do not receive into their communion those who live in marriage and possess property. But,” adds the holy Doctor, not without a touch of humor, “these people are heretics because they separate themselves from the Church and assert that there is no hope of salvation for such as have what they themselves have not.” ;

We have seen that Socialists quite commonly assert that Our Lord was a Communist if He was not a Socialist of the English type, and that the Fathers of the Christian Church preached Socialism. Mr. Keir Hardie quotes authority for saying that all the Fathers of the Church considered Communism the most perfect form of social organization, and that it was only when Christianity ceased to be the despised religion of the poor and the persecuted in order to become the official religion of the State that opinion on this point began to undergo a change. He asserts, indeed, that the Church did not become the avowed defender of property before the thirteenth century. And all this, he says, “incidentally shows how little modern churchgoers know of the history of their own religion when they charge Socialism with being anti-Christian.”⁹ Is this a true account of the matter or is it a mere travesty of historical fact? It is, of course, obvious to any one who reads the Gospels that the sympathies of Our Lord were with the poor. He chose for Himself a life of poverty, He sought His apostles and disciples among the poor, He indicated the fact that the Gospel was being preached to the poor as a sign of His Messiasship, He taught that it was very difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God, He invited chosen souls to embrace poverty voluntarily as a counsel of perfection, but He did not condemn riches in themselves as the Socialists assert that He did.

⁹ From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 42.

The most cursory reading of the context of those passages in the Gospels which are quoted to prove that Jesus Christ condemned riches, shows that he did nothing of the kind. He said indeed: “Woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation. Woe to you that are filled: for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.” But if Our Lord condemned riches in this passage, he equally condemned the taking of a good meal and laughter. It is obvious that not riches in themselves are here condemned, but those rich people who put their trust, happiness, and consolation in their wealth, and neglect the Kingdom of God. Still less does the story of the rich young man favor Socialism. “ What good shall I do,” he asked, “ that I may have life everlasting?” “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” answered Jesus. “ All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?” again asked the other. Then Jesus looked upon him, and loved him and said: “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.” It is obvious from this that the actual renouncing of wealth was not considered by Our Lord as one of the commandments the keeping of which is necessary for eternal life. He invited a chosen soul to leave his wealth and follow Him more closely with a view to obtaining the perfection of charity. In other words, as the Church has always taught, the voluntary renunciation of wealth in order to imitate Jesus Christ more closely, is one of the counsels of perfection to which those who are called may aspire, but it is not necessary for salvation. The Communism, which for a short time was practised in the early Church, was voluntary, as is clear from St. Peter’s words to Ananias. In all ages there have always been, as there are to-day, many thousands of men and women who follow the counsel of Our Lord and practise voluntary poverty in the Catholic Church.

Nor did the Fathers of the Church to whom Mr.

Keir Hardie alludes teach anything different from this. They laid great stress indeed on the duty of almsgiving, they declared that the poor had a right to alms, but by this they meant a right arising from the title of charity. They sometimes accused the rich of defrauding the poor, and of injustice; sins that many rich men in all ages and countries have been guilty of, but not necessarily infecting riches as such. It is possible to get rich without committing injustice, though it be true that injustice is the cause of many men being rich. St. John Chrysostom and those half-dozen Fathers of the fourth century whose strong language is quoted by Socialists in this connection did not condemn riches in themselves or deny the right of private property. This is clear from what St. John Chrysostom says, for example, in his second Homily to the people of Antioch. We there read: “It is worth while to inquire why the Apostle writing to Timothy did not say: Charge the rich of this world not to be rich, charge them to become poor, charge them to give up their possessions; but he said to them: Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded. He knew that pride is the root and prop of riches: and if a man know how to live with moderation such a one has no great affection for them. . . . Besides he knew that riches are not forbidden if their owner uses them for his necessities. For, as I said, wine is not an evil thing but drunkenness is; so wealth is not a bad thing but avarice is. A miser is one thing, a wealthy man another. . . . Besides, Paul was not accustomed to command all things to all men, but he accommodated himself to the weakness of his hearers as did Christ Himself. For to the rich man who came up to Him and asked about life eternal Christ did not say at once: Go, sell all that thou hast; but omitting this, He instructed him concerning the other commandments. Then after the rich man had given Him an opening by saying: “What is yet wanting to me? not even then did He simply tell him to sell all that he had, but He said: If thou wilt be perfect sell what thou hast: I leave this to your free will, you may choose it or not, I impose on you no strict obligation.¹⁰

¹⁰ Migne 49, col. 39, n. 5.

Similar passages could be quoted from St. Basil, St. Ambrose, and from the other Fathers of the early Church whose isolated oratorical utterances the Socialists so grossly misrepresent. The constant teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to wealth is explained at length by Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the Fathers who lived at the end of the second century. He wrote a treatise on the question Who that is rich may be saved. With a view to explaining the Christian doctrine about riches, he quotes and annotates at length the Gospel story about the rich young man. He gives the passage from the Gospels in full, and then among other comments has the following: “Jesus does not blame him for not fulfilling all the commandments of the law, nay, rather, He loves and cherishes him in that he had strenuously put in practice what he had been taught; but for all that He declares him imperfect with reference to life eternal, in that he had not done what belongs to perfection . . . ‘sell what thou hast.’

What does this mean? He certainly does not bid him throw away his wealth and give up his money as some understand it in the obvious sense; but He bids him remove from his heart the vain esteem for wealth, the unbridled lust and greed of it, the anxious cares and tribulations of the world, which choke the seed of life... . For it is a necessary consequence that he who is in want of the necessaries of life is broken in spirit and distracted with anxiety while he strives to procure a livelihood anyhow and anywhere. How much better is it that he should possess moderate wealth so as not to be in want himself and so as to be able to help others in necessity. For if nobody has anything what mutual help can there be among men? Would not that be in open contradiction with many beautiful points of Our Lord’s teaching? Make friends of the mammon of iniquity, etc. ... Lay up treasure in heaven. . . . How could one feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, take the stranger in (which he must do to avoid hell fire, and the exterior darkness), if he is himself without means. Christ Himself was hospitably received by Zacchaeus and by Matthew, who were rich publicans. And He does not bid them give up their wealth, but says: ‘This day is salvation come to this house in that he, too, is a son of Abraham.’ He so praises the use of money that He commands almsdeeds, the giving of drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, the clothing of the naked, and hospitality to the stranger. But then since these duties cannot be fulfilled without money, if He bade us renounce it, Our Lord would command us at the same time to give and not to give, than which nothing can be more foolish. So that wealth which contributes to our neighbor’s assistance is not to be given up.... Wealth is a means; if you use it rightly it is an aid to virtue; if you use it wrongly it is an occasion of sin. Since, then, wealth is neither good nor bad in itself, and may be possessed without fault, it must not be condemned. . . . Let no one then destroy riches and wealth, but rather let him root out the affections and cares which prevent them being used virtuously; so that becoming good and honest he may also use wealth honestly and well. When, therefore, we are bidden to renounce wealth and to sell what we possess, this is to be understood of renouncing the inordinate affections and cares concerning earthly possessions. ... So that we must not understand what is said about the rich entering with difficulty the kingdom of heaven in a wrong, bald, and carnal sense; but more spiritually. For though what be said, still salvation does not consist in externals, whether they be abundant or not, great or little, of high repute or obscure, esteemed or otherwise; but salvation consists in the virtues of the soul, in faith, hope, charity, brotherly love, wisdom, meekness, modesty, truth; of these virtues salvation is the reward.” 24

We must then conclude that the doctrine of Christ and of the Christian Church lends no support to Socialism even of the mild English type, and that Catholicism and Socialism are incompatible with one another. The more keen-sighted of the Socialists see this quite plainly, and while some of them ignore the fact or strive to conceal it for strategical reasons, others are quite plain-spoken on the point. Among the latter is Mr. Belfort Bax, who writes thus: “In face of the active campaign of the Roman Catholic Church among peasants and workmen in many parts of the Continent of Europe, as well as in some of the States of North America, the notion of maintaining that religion is a purely private matter, and that Socialism has no concern with it, if it be a pretense, is a dishonest farce, and if it be no pretense, must mean treachery to the party. It were surely a much better policy, while always insisting on the avoidance of barren, theological controversies or the unnecessary irritation of smoldering religious sentiment, to candidly admit that Socialism, like every other system of society, has its own Weltanschauung, or conception of the universe, and that, rash as it would undoubtedly be at present to attempt to confine it within the four corners of any formula or set of formulæ — it is, nevertheless, if nothing else, incompatible with the supernaturalism and with much of the ethics of the old religious systems. It is, of course, perfectly true that a man may favor any particular ‘ plank’ of the immediate party program and vote for them while remaining a strict Catholic or Calvinist or Jew or Moslem; and the present writer would be the last in the world to choke off such extraneous aid — aid which is not merely desirable or advantageous, but, in the present position of affairs at least, is in most countries absolutely essential to the formation of a Parliamentary Socialist party. All that is sought

11 Quis dives salvetur, cc. 9-18.

to be urged here merely points to a distinction between such ‘proselytes of the gate’ and those who are definitely recognized as members of the Socialist party. The profession of dogmatic theological beliefs by the latter can but mean one of two things — either deliberate deception, or such a hopeless nebulosity of mind as to suggest that the persons in question are extremely undesirable members of an organization where sincerity, outspokenness of conviction, and clearness of intention, are of the first importance.” #

May we hope that all Catholics will bear in mind the verse in the Book of Proverbs:

“A net is spread in vain before the eyes of them that have wings.”

12 Essays in Socialism, p.

99 (1907).