There are moments when history and providence seem to converge.
On Thursday in St. Louis, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was beatified, nearly seven years after the Vatican first approved the miracle that cleared the way for the beloved American bishop to be declared blessed. The beatification was originally scheduled for December 2019 but was abruptly postponed while questions surrounding Sheen’s tenure as bishop of Rochester received further examination.
Perhaps the delay itself was providential.
Sheen’s star is shining brightly at this moment in American history because his voice is needed again.
In the mid-20th century, two prominent Americans were relentless in warning the world about communism: Fulton Sheen and Ronald Reagan. They approached the subject from different directions—Sheen as a Catholic philosopher and evangelist, Reagan as an actor, union leader, and eventually president—but both recognized the dangers of an ideology that subordinated the individual to the collective.
Those questions are hardly relics of the Cold War. A Gallup poll released this week found that 43 percent of Americans now view socialism positively, the highest level recorded since Gallup began asking the question in 2010. Among Americans ages 18 to 34, nearly 60 percent have a positive view.
Bishop Robert Barron sees a striking connection between Sheen’s warnings and our present moment. Standing in front of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis on Tuesday, two days before Sheen’s beatification, Barron warned that “communism is making a comeback right now in our country.”
He called on American Catholic leaders to follow Sheen’s example and “speak out strongly on both American and Catholic principles against the re-emergence of this still very dangerous ideology.”
Barron’s point goes to the heart of why Sheen remains so relevant.
Long before his television program Life Is Worth Living made him one of America’s most recognizable personalities in the 1950s, Sheen studied Marxism closely. He understood its attraction, particularly its promises of equality and concern for workers. But he believed its fundamental error went much deeper than economics.
Communism, Sheen said, represented “the final logic of the dehumanization of man.” By denying God and reducing reality to material forces, Marxism inevitably diminished the human person. In Sheen’s analysis, communism promised equality by abolishing private property and ultimately making everyone dependent upon the state.
Pope St. John Paul II would later make the same argument.
The Polish pope knew communism not merely from books but from experience. He lived under both Nazi occupation and a Soviet-backed Communist regime. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul identified what he called socialism’s “fundamental error”: its mistaken understanding of the human person.
Socialism, he wrote, treats the individual as an element or “molecule” within the social organism. Once that happens, the person’s freedom, moral responsibility, and transcendent dignity become subordinate to the economic and political system. The deepest problem, John Paul argued, was atheism. When God is removed, the foundation for the transcendent dignity of the human person is removed with Him.
That connection between Sheen and the pope became beautifully personal near the end of Sheen’s life.
On Oct. 2, 1979, during John Paul’s first papal visit to the United States, the pope spotted the frail 84-year-old archbishop at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. He called Sheen forward and embraced him.
“You have written and spoken well of the Lord Jesus,” John Paul told him. “You are a loyal son of the Church.”
Their exchange did not end there.
Nine days later, John Paul wrote Sheen to congratulate him on the 60th anniversary of his priesthood. “God called you to proclaim in an extraordinary way his dynamic word,” the pope wrote, noting that through Sheen’s six decades of priesthood, “God has touched the lives of millions.”
On Nov. 26, Sheen replied: “I bow in humble gratitude for the Pontifical approval of my ministry of the Word.”
Thirteen days later, Sheen died before the Blessed Sacrament in his private chapel.
Reagan’s confrontation with communism began in another arena: Hollywood.
As president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, Reagan encountered Communist organizing and influence within the entertainment industry and labor movement. In 1947, he testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities about what he described as Communist tactics within Hollywood. Yet Reagan also cautioned against simply outlawing unpopular political beliefs, arguing that American democracy was strong enough to confront dangerous ideologies openly.
That experience helped shape the anti-Communism that later defined his presidency.
Sheen, Reagan, and John Paul II understood something that can easily be forgotten now that the Berlin Wall has fallen and the Soviet Union has disappeared. Ideas do not become harmless simply because history has exposed their failures.
And Sheen’s argument was ultimately deeper than a debate over tax rates, government programs, or economic systems. His concern was the human person.
Christianity begins with a radically different premise from Marxist materialism: man is not merely an economic unit, a member of a class or a component of the state. Every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, endowed with freedom, responsibility, and a destiny beyond this world.
In 2019, the Church was prepared to call Fulton Sheen “blessed.”
Seven years later, as socialism receives its highest favorable rating Gallup has ever recorded among Americans, Sheen is finally raised to the altars. And on the eve of his beatification, one of America’s most prominent bishops stood beneath the Gateway Arch and declared: “We need that voice again today.”
John Paul II famously reminded us that in God’s providence, there are no mere coincidences.
I’m certain this is one of them.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Socialism, [John Paul II] wrote, treats the individual as an element or ‘molecule’ within the social organism.”
And, as Whittaker Chambers wrote in a letter to Bill Buckley, “What else is socialism but Communism with the claws retracted?”
I wish our 18 years olds grasped that, as well as many of the politicians.
We should also note that while Blessed Sheen was right about so many things, including the evil of communism, he was wrong when, shortly before the end of his life, he said in a recorded conversation with Malcolm Muggeridge and James P. McFadden that communism was defeated.
“And I wrote to the head of the bishops, Archbishop Quinn, and I said, ‘Why are we publishing the dialogue with Marxism? This isn’t our problem. We’re beating a dead horse. We have other problems today that are far, far deeper. Marxism is finished.’”
Of course, we know today that while the Soviet Union collapsed, communism is alive and well, particularly in China, but also throughout the world, sometimes going under other names and guises– and Vietnam in particular fell to the communists and is still under their thumb today, along with Cuba and Nicaragua. Today we face the triple threats of communism, Islam, and secularism. Blessed Fulton Sheen, please pray for us.
https://humanlifereview.com/sheen-muggeridge/
If youth are more favorably disposed to socialism, then two things are likely contributing to it:
1. A serious defect in their education and understanding of world history and
2. A loss of belief in and worship of a Creator God with a concomitant reliance on self and science to the exclusion of faith.
Youth are favorably disposed to socialism because they are currently seeing and suffering the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Their education is fine. Their faith is fine. Your ability to grasp the facts though, might need improvement.
Gerard, your view of leftism is badly askew.
Here’s why.
Leftists have never understood the genius of capitalism.
They view work in a capitalistic system as nothing more than a burden, an occasion for the exploitation and predation of workers.
It somehow escapes them that the reason the standard of living goes up in a country is that workers are producing products and services — the good things that make people’s lives better and make societies thrive.
The fact is, leftists always focus on money. But, quite obviously, money produces nothing. It’s people spending their days working their jobs who bring the good life.
At its core, leftism is unfair. In a system of distributive justice, everyone receives “the resources they need” — which always sounds wonderful. After all, who wants to see people in poverty?
But when everyone receives “enough,” it means that the lazy, unproductive, unreliable workers get the same pay as the dedicated, diligent, hard-working workers.
And psychologists will tell you that in a system that does not recognize and reward outstanding performance, the best participants come to understand that their extra efforts are wasted. And they will inevitably begin reverting to the mean — lackadaisical, subpar performance.
Which is why socialist countries always end up as varying degrees of gray, depressing and impoverished.
It’s inevitable.
Think about it. In Cuba, all the workers — and the layabouts, for that matter — have “enough” money for “the resources they need.”
Just one problem. There aren’t enough of those “resources.”
The fact that everyone gets “enough” money, whether they work or not, ensures that many don’t work. And so there are severe shortages of products — including food — throughout the country.
And so what is your money worth when there’s nothing to buy, Mr. Leftist?
Leftists have no concept that capitalism’s genius is to align the interests of the individual with the interests of society.
People are rewarded for their hard work and productivity. And society benefits accordingly.
And people are also rewarded for their good ideas for new products or services — personal computers, online shopping, iPhones, whatever — according to the value that others place on them.
Finally, while leftists are obsessed with money, they have no idea of what money really is.
Money is a societally recognized abstraction for value produced. When a worker completes a job, he has delivered something that is of value to someone. That value created is reflected in the pay he receives.
When many workers create much value — producing food, fixing cars, replacing roofs, whatever — wealth is created. There’s lots of money to spread around, leading to more economic growth and cultivating a robust and prosperous economy.
When you hold a $100 bill in your hand, you’re in a very real sense touching the time and imagination and lives of countless individuals who contributed to all of the value which that bill has delivered since it was first created.
Leftists understand none of this.
Which is why socialist societies always, always, *always* end up oppressing their citizens.
For socialism to succeed, people must be forced to act in ways that are against their best interests. Whereas, under capitalism, people are free to pursue their best interests, wherever they perceive those interests leading them.
So what about the unfortunate individuals who for whatever reason are left behind in poverty within capitalist economies?
That’s where charity comes in. Virtue. Compassion.
Or, if you prefer, Christianity.
It’s worth noting that charity is also ennobling to those on both ends of the transaction, both the giver and the receiver. The giver feels good about helping someone, and the receiver feels worthwhile because he’s being blessed by a personal gesture of fellowship by another.
Charity is a virtue and is, therefore, of God.
Whereas government entitlements tend to rob an individual of his sense of accomplishment, of self-respect, of satisfaction. In fact, government handouts can prompt people to feel like victims and sullenly resent those who have more. In this way, they’re able to justify to themselves their dependency.
The sad fact is, distributive justice’s real effect is to make sure that everyone has “enough” of the scarcity, the poverty, and the starvation it inevitably produces.
Remember that Jesus never compelled anyone to act virtuously. He respected the dignity of each individual, realizing that coercion is the absolute end of virtue.
Perhaps it’s time to expect governments, which are definitively *not* divine, to act with at least the same level of restraint shown by the Savior of the universe.
The biggest problem with this argument is that it treats “leftism,” “socialism,” welfare states, distributive justice, and communist command economies as if they are all the same thing. They are not.
For example, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands all maintain extensive social welfare systems, strong labor protections, universal healthcare, and significant redistribution of wealth. Yet they consistently rank among the world’s most prosperous, innovative, productive, and economically free societies. Their existence alone disproves the claim that attempts to ensure basic economic security inevitably lead to poverty, shortages, or oppression.
The argument also creates a false choice between capitalism and redistribution. In practice, every successful modern capitalist economy contains both markets and redistribution. Public schools, roads, police, courts, social insurance, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and disability programs all involve redistribution to varying degrees. The debate is not whether redistribution should exist, but how much and in what form.
The claim that “leftists always focus on money” is particularly puzzling. Historically, one of the central criticisms made by many left-wing thinkers—from Marx to modern social democrats—is precisely that societies focus too heavily on wealth accumulation and market values at the expense of human well-being, community, and dignity. One may disagree with their conclusions, but it is difficult to argue that they are uniquely obsessed with money.
Likewise, the assertion that socialism “always, always, always” ends in oppression is too absolute to survive historical scrutiny. Democratic socialist and social democratic parties have governed numerous countries without abolishing elections, civil liberties, private property, or political opposition. If the claim is instead about Soviet-style centrally planned economies, that is a much narrower and more defensible argument. But the comment repeatedly shifts between criticizing communist states like Cuba and criticizing all forms of left-wing politics as though they were identical.
The discussion of incentives also oversimplifies human motivation. Financial reward certainly matters, but decades of psychological research show that people are motivated by many factors: purpose, mastery, social status, recognition, community, autonomy, and moral conviction. Teachers, scientists, artists, clergy, caregivers, soldiers, and volunteers often continue working hard even when financial rewards are modest. Human beings are more complicated than a simple reward-maximization model suggests.
Finally, the claim that charity can replace government assistance ignores scale. Private charity plays an important role, but historically it has rarely generated enough resources to address nationwide problems such as elderly poverty, disability, unemployment, healthcare access, or economic crises. Before modern social insurance programs, poverty among the elderly was dramatically higher than it is today. Whether one supports or opposes particular welfare programs, the historical evidence suggests that charity alone has not proven sufficient to meet those needs.
The strongest version of the argument is that markets are powerful engines of prosperity and that poorly designed economic systems can weaken incentives and reduce growth. That is a serious point worth debating. But the claim that all forms of left-wing economics inevitably produce poverty and oppression is far broader than the evidence supports.
Gerard, there is no such thing as “unrestrained capitalism.” Antitrust laws are more than a century old, and sanctions against any form of economic abuse is enshrined in statutory law. Not perfectly. But the practices of nineteenth century robber barons are outlawed. Criminal fraud is the product of personal evil, not the fault of free markets. Crony capitalism and monopolistic trusts are the opposite of free markets.
Having a job and paying bills as a benefit from market economies, provided by enterprises financed by a free people, enterprises that pay most of the taxes in this country, which comes out of demonized profits, does not result in suffering. Just the opposite. Motivations to construct false views of economic abuse originate more from the pursuit of ego-gratification that substitutes group think mob indignation in place of accepting that many personal frustrations are the result of personal failures, exacerbated by having been taken in by a university industry conducting financial fleecing for an oftentimes useless degree.
Every good man has his blind spots, even a brilliant and holy man. The thought of Bishop Sheen often displayed inclinations to believe in the power of revolutionary events and pivotal thinkers for better or worse. His faith in VII was hard to dislodge from its silly promise of a springtime for the Church.
Men of heroic faith ought to know that social management can never improve the human condition, and promoters of VII acquiesced to the premises of social management.
Pius was correct when he asserted ‘No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a Socialist properly so- called.’
Pius was dead wrong on that. Good thing he wasn’t infallibble and a Catholic is free to use their prudential judgement.
You are dead wrong to be a supporter of the culture of death Gerard. It is in the nature of socialism to treat life as utilitarian commodities of the state, the unavoidable reality of which is to treat life as expendable if such an interest serves what tyrants call “the greater good.”
And there is no such thing as a prudential judgment regarding intrinsic evils.
This author should lecture Trump. It is the aspiring dictator who idolizes and befriends Communist dictators: Putin, Xi, and Kim.