Marxists in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

Marxists in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

2015-12-21 BY MICHAEL HICHBORN Lepanto Institute

“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will not stifle my ardor.

Then will I wander godlike and victorious
Through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force,
I will feel equal to the Creator.”

-Karl Marx, “Human Pride,” 1837

There can be no doubt in the mind of even the most casual observer that Karl Marx’s influence had the single-greatest impact on the devastation seen throughout the of the 20th Century. Marx’s ideologies fueled the rise of the bloodiest regimes known to human history. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, Communist Cuba … the brutality of the governments ascribing to the teachings of Karl Marx is beyond human reckoning. In addition to the tens of millions of people murdered in Stalin’s purges, Pol Pot’s exterminations, and the other slaughters that have taken place under Marxist dictatorships are the countless others destroyed by abortion. Lenin, the first Marxist dictator, was the first to legalize abortion. Later Stalin reversed this, when he saw its demographic consequences for Russia amidst the purges and wars, however, he maintained and even forced it on satellite countries like Hungary. The idea has always been to implement regulations on population growth in order to gain control of weaker countries. It used to be more covert, but it became “scientific” with the advent of the eugenics movement (which was fostered by committed Marxists).

Prophetically, the Church recognized the destructive nature of Karl Marx’s ideologies and quickly condemned them. Pope Paul VI reminds us of this fact in his Apostolic Letter On the Eightieth Anniversary of the Encyclical “Rerum Novarum.” In this letter, Pope Paul VI said:

“Therefore the Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity … cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history; nor can be adhere to the liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by withdrawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of the social organization.”

Later on in the letter, Pope Paul VI pointed out that some try to differentiate the various iterations of Marxist thought, erroneously believing that they can somehow be brought into conformity with Catholic thinking. To this, he said:

“While, through the concrete existing form of Marxism, one can distinguish these various aspects and the questions they pose for the reflection and activity of Christians, it would be illusory and dangerous to reach a point of forgetting the intimate link which radically binds them together, to accept the elements of Marxist analysis without recognizing their relationships with ideology, and to enter into the practice of class struggle and its Marxist interpretations, while failing to note the kind of totalitarian and violent society to which this process leads.”

Karl Marx’s hatred for humanity was rivaled only by the devil itself. His writings all had only one end; the complete and total destruction of mankind. In a play he wrote under the title, “Oulanem” (which is an anagram for Emanuel), he said:

“If there is something which devours,
I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins-
The world which bulks between me and the abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses.

I’ll throw my arms around its harsh reality:
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away,
And then sink down to utter nothingness,
Perished, with no existence-that would be really living.”

Given the satanic nature of Marx’s ideologies and writings, and the Church’s thorough condemnations of them, one would naturally believe that anyone adhering to such ideologies would never find themselves in a place of influence in the Church. While it certainly stands to reason, it is sadly not the case.

In April of 2014, Pope Francis appointed Margaret Archer as the next president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS). Since that time, Ms. Archer has used her position to invite population-control architects Jeffrey Sachs and Ban-Ki Moon to speak at a Vatican event and attack pro-lifers who were concerned about it. Just last month, Ms. Archer participated in an event sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that was intended to explore ways to indoctrinate children into the Sustainable Development agenda of the United Nations (goals which have already been demonstrated to be Marxist in character and practice). These alarming trends from an individual under two years in her position are shocking, but after investigating Ms. Archer’s background, it’s clear that the philosophy of Karl Marx is driving her agenda.

Ms. Archer is one of the leading developers and proponents of a sociological theory called “Critical Realism.” The theory of Critical Realism was initially developed by the sociologist Roy Bhaskar, a deeply devoted Marxist, and is the bedrock for current streams of Marxist political and economic theory. On the Critical Realism website is a 1998 article by Hans G. Ehrbar titled, “Marxism and Critical Realism.” The very first paragraph of the article says:

“We will discuss here the connection between Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism and Marxism. Bhaskar is a Marxist, who did not write another exegesis of Grundrisse, but rederives Marx’s philosophical foundations based on today’s philosophical debates, by, as he says, “carrying the modern critiques of positivism to their logical conclusion”

In 1998, Ms. Archer co-authored a book with Bhaskar and three others titled “Critical Realism: Essential Readings.” Throughout the book, Karl Marx and Marxist ideologies are mentioned over 400 times … all as a means of explaining Marxist thought and integrating it into this idea of Critical Realism.

In 2004, Archer co-authored a book titled, “Transcendence: Critical Realism and God.” In the introduction of the book, the Archer and her co-authors say of themselves:

“The three of us are all academics. One of us is a philosopher, and two are sociologists. Similarly, we are all associated with the political left, the economic or Marxian left particularly.”

This book is also filled with Marxist ideologies and praise for socialism and Marxist economics.

Critical Realist Sean Creavan wrote a book in 2000 titled, “Marxism and Realism: A Materialist Application of Realism in the Social Sciences,” crediting Margaret Archer as the individual who suggest he write about the connection between Marxism and the theory of Critical Realism. In his acknowledgements, Creavan said:

“Special thanks are due to Professor Margaret Archer, who has allowed me to draw on her work with impunity, and whose advice on theoretical matters and on editing the final manuscript has been much appreciated. It was Professor Archer who made the suggestion that I investigate the relationship between realism, Marxism and explanatory theory, which forms the core of this book.”

In May of 2015 interview a journal of Social Theory at the University of Kentucky, Margaret Archer explained the strong influence and impact Karl Marx had in influencing her work. She said:

“We did a thing in England called the Coast to Coast March, which isn’t as terrifying as if you tried to do it here. It’s not a big walk there, the only trouble is you actually meet more sheep than you do people. So, we had long conversations with these academics and that’s where I first heard the words Max Weber (who at that age I thought was spelled with a ‘V’) and that fuelled the interest a lot more. Many of these Profs were Marxists of one kind or another, so they were theorizing, not just in an abstract way, but theorizing, as they saw it, for a better society. I don’t think that theme has ever gone away from my work, but it’s never been distinctively Marxist. I thought that far too formulaic and times had changed. Some of the concepts needed changing. We have no proletariat now, the poor are a heterogeneous category, the main thing they have in common is their poverty, not being members of the proletariat, and so on. No, I would never describe myself as a Marxist, but never deny that it was a powerful formative influence.”

Given her work in Critical Realism, the influence of Karl Marx is abundantly clear.

While Archer is currently the most influential member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences as its president, she is not the only problem. Another Marxist member of the PASS is Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz has been a member of PASS since 2003.

The most important thing to know about Stiglitz is that he is the Chairman of the Socialist International Commission on Global Finance Issues. The architect of the First Socialist International was Karl Marx, so the fact of Stiglitz’s chairmanship is enough to identify him as a Marxist who should have nothing to do with Vatican-sponsored activities. But there’s more. Stiglitz is on the Scientific Committee for an organization called the IDEAS Foundation for Progress. IDEAS is a think-tank for the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party. In the year 2000, with funding from notorious socialist George Soros’ Open Society, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

Here’s another member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences who has no business being anywhere near the Vatican. Partha Sarathi Dasgupta, a major proponent of contraception and population control, has been a member of the PASS since 1997. In 2013, Dasgupta wrote an article for Science Magazine titled, “Pervasive Externalities at the Population, Consumption, and Environment Nexus.” In the article, Dasgupta argues that population growth is placing an undue burden on available resources, decrying the lack of availability and use of contraception. He says:

“Family planning is not subject to the play of “free markets”; it is biased by restrictive laws, widespread misinformation, and rules not based on evidence (13–16). The unmet need for family planning is substantial. For example, the proportion of women in Malawi who either want to delay their next baby or stop having children altogether, but who are not using contraception, is ~25%. Women who have greater autonomy are better equipped to surmount the many barriers that often prevent easy access to family planning. When the barriers are few, as in Indonesia, the use of contraception and the TFRs (Total Fertility Rates) among the highest- and lowest-income quintiles are similar (15). When the barriers [to acquiring contraception] are numerous, as in the Philippines, the poor both have more children and a greater unmet need for family planning. Access to family planning can be increased relatively quickly compared with other approaches to lowering TFRs, such as improving women’s education (although the alternatives may be synergistic). Forty percent of the world’s population (including countries with TFRs as high as 6 as recently as 50 years ago) now has TFRs that are at or below replacement level. The aggregate demand for environmental resources is, in part, a function of humanity’s population size. Whether world population reaches 8 billion or 10 billion in 2050 and whether it reaches 15 billion or 17 billion in 2100 will depend on small differences in average family size, which could be highly influenced by rebuilding the focus on family planning.”

The call for a reduction in population growth and increased access to contraception is a concept he has held for a long time. In 1995, Dasgupta wrote an article titled, “The Population Problem: Theory and Evidence.” In this article, he actually looks for ways to lower the desire of couples to even have children at all.

“The analysis presented here suggests that the way to reduce fertility would be to break the destructive spiral where such a spiral is in operation. Because parental demand for children, rather than an unmet need for contraceptives, in great measure explains reproductive behavior in poor countries, we should try to identify policies that would so change the options men and women face that their reasoned choice would be to lower their fertility.”

A little later in the article, he takes this concept a bit further, even to the point of shifting economic policies so as to give the impression that children are a financial burden to be avoided.

“The most potent solution in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent is to deploy a number of policies simultaneously. Family planning services, especially when allied with health services, and measures that empower women are certainly desirable. As social norms break down and traditional support systems falter, those women who choose to change their behavior become financially and socially more vulnerable. So a literacy and employment drive for women is essential to smooth the transition to lower fertility. But improving social coordination and directly increasing the economic security of the poor are also essential. Providing infrastructural goods, such as cheap fuel and potable water, will reduce the usefulness of extra hands. When a child becomes perceived as expensive, we may finally have a hope of dislodging the rapacious hold of high fertility rates.“

Dasgupta’s involvement in population control is even more disgusting than this. Dasgupta is a “patron” and “endorser” of a population-control organization called “Population Matters for a sustainable future.” As a patron, his name appeared on a powerpoint presentation titled, “Why Population Matters: An Introduction.” Following slides indicating a push for increased access to contraception, decriminalized abortion, and even a requirement for pharmacists to stock abortifacient morning-after pills, Slide 28 of this presentation states the following as “Key Goals” for the organization:

Universal access to reproductive health
Reducing the incidence of undesired conceptions
Asking people to have one or two children rather than three or four for environmental/ sustainability reasons

Partha Dasgupta has been a member of the PASS for nearly 20 years, and his clearly stated hatred for children should have disqualified him at the outset.

In April of 2015, Archer, Dasgupta, and the Chancellor of PASS, Msgr. Sanchez Sorondo joined leading population-control advocate Jeffrey Sachs in creating a document calling for adoption of the contraception-pushing Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), called “Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement on the Problem and Demand for Transformative Changes.” It is interesting to note that while the SDGs demonstrably called for the spread of abortion and contraception, those measures were carefully omitted from the document’s summary of the SDGs themselves.

Conclusion

This brief look into the works of highly influential individuals in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences is hardly exhaustive. What Catholics need to take away from this is that there is no doubt that the enemies of the Christ have found their ways into highly influential positions in the Church. We need to be watchful and aware that the current push within the Vatican to endorse the latest power-grab by Marxists at the United Nations is being driven by individuals such as these in the PASS.

The Lepanto Institute will continue to investigate and identify the infiltrators raiding Our Beloved Church, but the only victory to be had will be achieved by the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin. Pray the Rosary every day for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

Our Lady of Victory, Ora pro nobis!

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2015/12/22/marxists-in-the-pontifical-academy-of-social-sciences/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

Leave a Reply