Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:18:07 -0800
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: religion


SOME THOUGHTS ON PETER BURNS'S PHILOSOPHY

   Peter says: "BUT: one even finds that that when the
subjects of reason, mind, and <ethical/aesthetic, etc>
value come up <of which the God issue is, I think, more
a symptom than a central topic in itself>, a goodly
number of marxists, though by no means all, fall into
scientistic modes of response."

   Holy moley! (If you'll excuse the expression). So now
God is no longer a central topic! I hope this doesn't
mean God is dead! (Maybe He's only been demoted to
an "Issue.")
   Is there some new encyclical that I missed? I had
always thought that God was _the_ central topic. What
changed?
   Peter had a bit to say also about how communistic the
Jesuits are. He indicated that they were able to share
everything and be generous and so forth. Naturally, he
didn't have anything to say about the income of the
Catholic church from the parishioners or from property.
I wonder whether Peter's community or institution is
self-sustaining or whether it receives income from
the church.
   Of course Marx, Peter's hero, had no problem with
priests living off the parishioners' money. Regarding
the legislation of the Paris Commune, Marx pointed out, 
   "...the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual
force of repression, the 'parson power,' by the
disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as
proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the
recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms
of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors,
the Apostles" (from _The Civil War in France_).
   Peter's post of Nov. 26 was ostensibly directed against
"scientism," but was actually a polemic against Marxism
and materialism. The problem is that Peter doesn't know
what he thinks, or if he does, he can't bring himself
to say it.
   His philosophical ramblings are saturated with evasion
and subterfuge, self-doubt and defensiveness. He cannot
accept his function as representative of the official
doctrine of Catholicism, yet he cannot tear himself
away from what he has come to feel is his home. His
dilemma is not untypical of the feelings of millions
of Catholics today.
   He wants to regard Marx as a beacon, but this forces
him, against his will, to reduce God to an "issue." But
he cannot embrace Marx, because that would require the
renunciation of his (up to now) vocation.
   Marx maintained: "if man attributes an independent
existence, clothed in a religious form, to his relation-
ship to his own nature, to external nature and to other
men so that he is dominated by these notions, then he
requires priests and their labor. With the disappearance
of the religious form of consciousness and of these
relationships, the labor of priests will likewise cease
to enter into the social process of production. The
labor of priests will end with the existence of the
priests themselves and, in the same way, the labor which
the capitalit performs qua capitalist, or causes to be
performed by someone else, will end together with the
existence of the capitalists." (_TSV_, III, p. 496)
   Religious consciousness is dying before our eyes.
The mass of Catholics, mainly working class, are
rejecting the earthly authority of the church
hierarchy in unprecedented numbers, feeling strong
enough now to make their own decisions on questions
relating to their private lives. The priest is
increasingly left with nothing to do, and the
number of Catholic youth who choose a clerical
career is declining rapidly.
   The much ballyhooed resurgence of Christian
protestant fundamentalism and evangelism, for its
part, represents an increasingly secular proto-
fascist movement, with a thin veneer of sanctimonious
Christian demagogy to give it respectability.
   The Church, Peter's church, is dying. What is
his role now? Why has he come to the Marxism list?
Is he fighting to save his church? Or does he
want to see the power and the authority of the
capitalists smashed and obliterated forever? What
then becomes of the Church? 
   He desperately seeks the sanctuary of the "middle
way"--the haven of "market socialism." Perhaps by
this means the massive battles that will finish off
capitalism (and religion with it) can be avoided.
He prays that we can live perpetually with all the
social and ideological fetishes we cherish so
dearly. But this "middle road" puts Peter in the
difficult position of holding back the rising
tide of ultraright reaction on the one side (and
for this purpose he identifies Chrisitanity with
communism); and on the other side he struggles
mightily against "scientism" and "planned economy,"
to keep the masses in their place.
   Like Samson, our Jesuit has built up an immense
theoretical power in order to accomplish the task
of holding the contending classes at bay. But like
Sisyphus, the weight keeps coming back down on him
again. How long can he hold out? Probably a long time,
given the slow pace of events. But we can't know for
sure.
   In any case, I give him credit for what he's
done so far, in entering upon this struggle. At
least it has opened him up to the world. Who knows
where this may lead him?
   One final note: Peter suggested I review (refute)
John Torrance's _Karl Marx's Theory of Ideas_. I
appreciate the offer but won't have time.

Jim Miller
Seattle    


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------