Two Archbishops Contradicting Each Other On Marx

Two Archbishops Contradicting Each Other On Marx – 5/7/18

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa, Canada, remembered on the bicentennial of Karl Marx’s birth “the millions who suffered and died—and who are still suffering and dying because of Marxist ideology.”

He called Marx on Twitter (May 5) a “prophet of violence and terror”.

On the contrary, Munich Cardinal Reinhard Marx attempted to trivialise Karl Marx’ legacy, saying in an interview with (May 5) that Karl Marx was “not a Church Father” [as if anybody had claimed this].

The cardinal does not want to absolve Karl Marx from the consequences of communism but neither does he want to hold him responsible “for everything that happened in the consequence of his theory, up to Stalin’s gulags.”

Get AQ Email Updates

One comment on “Two Archbishops Contradicting Each Other On Marx

  1. Cardinal Reinhard Marx “obtained a doctorate in theology, from the University of Bochum, in 1989.” Since the difference between Marxism and Catholicism was still being taught at Catholic institutions in the 1980s, it would be a stretch to claim that a doctoral candidate in theology was unaware of that in 1989. Or standards for doctorates at German universities must have reached an incredible level of decadence and illiteracy by that point.

    We hereby call the Cardinal to attention on this matter in a spirit of fraternal correction. If he remains unaware of the profound differences between Catholicism and Marxism, he should consult The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri de Lubac, S.J. , The Gods of Atheism by Vincent Miceli, S.J., and Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) for background reading. As well as Michael Novak’s Will it Liberate (1986) and Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Communism and the Conscience of the West (1948).

    “Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931. n. 120)

Leave a Reply