heroines here;
borderlands here;
intelligence services here;
feminine objects of devotion here;
Jewish characters here;
narrative points of view here;
"cosmic consciousness" here.
These comparisons generate others, e.g.:
Bublanski talking to God recalls Don Camillo doing the same (see combox here);
Guareschi might present different perspectives on both Catholicism and Communism?
I am finally trying to read something else and to sign off from further posting till tomorrow!
12 comments:
Paul:
Guareschi's Communists, or at any rate most if not all those in Don Camillo's village, were atheists EXCEPT when it came time for baptisms, weddings, funerals, Christmas Mass, etc....
The bishop who visited a few times in the first book was clearly very aware that they were basically good people nonetheless. Don Camillo himself seldom ADMITTED being aware of the same thing.
Still, the very first story, "A Confession," has a very telling remark about Mayor Peppone. It's his first confession since 1918, meaning in at least twenty-eight years, he's a Communist, and he admits having hit Don Camillo with a stick just recently, "but all in all Don Camillo found nothing very serious and let him off with twenty Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys." (Well, and a good swift kick to the backside, which made them BOTH feel better.)
I'll note further the secret-agent-style tools our hero uses in *Comrade Don Camillo*, particularly the crucifix with folding arms hidden in the casing of a pen.
Kaor, DAVID!
Comrade Peppone may have been "formally" an atheist, but old habits seemed to have died hard with him! I recall him taking his hat off as he passed a church, to show respect for Christ, and then furtively looking to see if anyone had noticed so unCommunist a gesture!
One thing I remember from COMRADE DON CAMILLO was how the priest disguised his missal with a jacket cover declaring it to be a collection of extracts from the works of Lenin!
Sean
Sean,
An Indian Catholic priest who was a grad student in Religious Studies at Lancaster University told this story. On a religious procession in India, the secretary of the local Communist Party branch was seen carrying an image of the Virgin Mary. When reminded that Communists do not believe in God, he replied, "But the Mother of God is a different person!" In India, such a story might even be true.
Atheism is not a condition of membership of a revolutionary organization although anyone joining such an organization in order to proselytize within it would be informed that this was inappropriate and asked (or told) to leave.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of COURSE the BVM is a different person from God! But what made her unique was her being preserved from Original Sin and being asked by God to assent to becoming the Mother of the Incarnate Logos. And I would still find this behavior by the Secretary of the local Communist Party branch rather odd and very Peppone like!
And I have to disagree with your second paragraph. Atheism was made a condition of becoming a party member in the USSR. But what you said was probably true outside the USSR.
I recently had a thought about the Dom Camillo stories I never had before. Giovanni Guareschi never told us HOW and WHEN Christ first began to speak directly to Don Camillo. The first and oldest stories in this series shows them conversing to each other so familiarly and easily that it's logical to think it had been going on for years.
Sean
Sean,
Atheism as a condition of Party membership was one of the many things that were wrong under Stalin - not to mention lack of democracy etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to regretfully disagree. It did not begin with either Lenin or Stalin (who merely completed policies Lenin started). Rather, they seemed to have concluded from Marx's dictum about religion being the opium of the masses that dogmatic atheism was required of Party members.
Moreover, EVERY Communist regime which seized power has shown itself hostile to religion and religious believers. With a special hate reserved for Christians, esp. Catholic Christians.
I also believe true democracy is simply not possible under Marxism. Because its devotees believe it to be the only True Doctrine needed for reforming and remolding the human race and societies. It logically followed that no other opposing views or parties would be tolerated in a Marxist regime. Not if they opposed Marxism and would try to roll it back if they came to power. If Marxism is the Vanguard Doctrine (to use some Soviet cant) no beliefs challenging it and trying to oust would be allowed. Hence, no real democracy.
Sean
Sean,
You are describing people that I know and they are not like that. It is like saying that all Catholics want to burn heretics. There is a recognition that any political theory is not a True Doctrine but a theory to be tested and developed in practice. There are certainly organizations that apply Marxist ideas and that also have religious believers among their members. One of the ideas that is applied is that people individually and collectively can remake themselves and are not be molded according to any doctrine. Until a majority acts to change conditions, we will continue to be ruled by the present set-up in the US, the UK and around the world. Trying to overthrow existing governments by force and replace them with a one party dictatorship is not an option.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry if I was unclear or imprecise. I should have said that what I said about Marxists was true of the USSR, its satellites in eastern Europe, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, the Kims North Korea, Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnam, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. THEY behaved in the ways I condemned, not you and your friends. But, if so many Marxists were so brutal once in power, shouldn't that make you question Marxism? After all, among the victims of the tyrants I listed were those Marxists who actually recoiled from using such violence. Or were at least reluctant to rule so ruthlessly.
No, flawed and imperfect as the UK and US are, they are still better than anything we would see under Marxism.
Sean
Sean,
Those regimes have claimed to be Marxist and are very bad. I think Castro was better than Batista but I think we have discussed this before? In any case, Castro's guerilla war was not the kind of democratic mass action that some of us envisage. A despot can use any set of ideas as his ideological self-justification, can tell workers that he is liberating them while in fact oppressing and exploiting them. Populations (can) liberate themselves but not just by an act of will on the part of a determined "vanguard" minority.
Paul.
BTW, given that so many "Marxist" regimes have been so dictatorial, I acknowledge that you have a point.
Paul:
With regard to Castro's Cuba, I'll add this, with the caveat that I don't KNOW the truth of the matter:
a mystery novel in 1979 included a Cuban character who remarked that
"Batista was totally corrupt, of course. But hand him a share of your take, and your life was your own. Fidel? A fanatic who really believes that for their own good every Cuban must become his personal slave."
Kaor, Paul and DAVID!
Yes, I do accept that the regimes I listed (and any others I overlooked) were Marxist, if their founders claimed to be Marists, and steeped themselves in the works of Marx and Engels (and probably Lenin and Mao). And actually tried to rule according to Marxist theories.
I agree that Fulgencio Batista was a corrupt despot. But isn't a despot who at leaves you alone (probably after taking a bribe, true) better than an ideological fanatic ruthlessly trying to hammer square pegs into round holes?
I'm glad you at least think I have a point!
David: Exactly! Bad as Batista was, he was not an ideological fanatic, with all the too likely brutality to be expected of such persons. And I have read enough about Castro's Cuba to know the propaganda about all the good thing he had done were lies. All too typically STALINIST lies.
Sean
Post a Comment