| Highlights of Dawn | May 1949 |
Communism and Mindszenty
THE case of Cardinal Mindszenty refuses to die, although as time goes on the non-Catholic press and radio are more free to express opinions which probably at the time of the Cardinal’s arrest, trial, and sentencing to life imprisonment, would have been considered unethical, if not unkind. A fair example of this freedom of expression is the following statement published editorially in The Christian Century:
“Whereas it had been predicted that he [Mindszenty] would appear in court wrecked by torture or drugs, nothing of the sort seems to have been the case. Reporters could see no evidence of undue duress, and there was apparently less reason to suspect third degree methods than in many an American trial. On the contrary Cardinal Mindszenty took the courageous position of admitting many of the acts alleged against him and defending them on the ground that he was openly and actively opposed to the Communist regime, and that he did what he had done to fight that war. There is nothing equivocal about such a position, and nothing evasive about the man who avows it. That can hardly be said of the role which the trial revealed Cardinal Spellman had played in his intrigues with those who are seeking to restore the monarchy, and his involvement in black market operations.”
Before the cardinal was arrested, he is credited with saying concerning the communist officials who were trying to swing him into line with the viewpoint of the new state, “We are sitting by the waters of Babylon. They want us to learn songs as foreign to us as the sounds of an unstrung lute.” The cardinal’s reference to sitting by the waters of Babylon harks back to the experiences of the Jews when they were taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. That the cardinal should use this appears as an admission that the church in Hungary had gone into captivity, which, of course, is true.
In the Bible the term Babylon figures both historically and prophetically in connection with anti-God campaigns, as well as counterfeit systems of Christianity. The term originated with the building of the Tower of Babel, a short time after the Deluge. The Scriptures tell us that the motive of the people in building that tower was that it might serve as a symbol of unity, something to hold them together through the power of a great name that would be symbolized by an imposing tower.
The name of God as a uniting influence was set aside, and a mighty tower was to take its place. God thwarted the building of that tower, confused the tongues of the people, and scattered them. Thus, what was intended to be unity and strength turned out to be confusion, hence confusion is the real meaning of the term Babylon.
Nimrod, of whom the Scriptures speak as being “a mighty hunter before the Lord,” was the founder of the nation of Babylon. (Gen. 10:9,10) The expression “mighty hunter before the Lord,” really means that he defied the Lord, and it was probably this Nimrod who set up the first totalitarian state with a system of government under which the state was the sole arbiter of the consciences of men.
This viewpoint was emphasized centuries later by Nebuchadnezzar, who was then reigning monarch of Babylon, when he had an image erected to represent himself, and commanded all his subjects to bow down and worship that image. Those who would not do this were to be cast into a fiery furnace. Here was a clear case of worshiping the state in the place of God. There were three Hebrews at that time who refused to obey the edict of the king. They were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They did not, of course engage in a campaign, open or otherwise, against the state, but simply refused to obey in this matter which called upon them to violate their conscience. They were very definite about it, and said to the king:
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”—Dan. 3:16-18
Upon refusing thus to obey the king’s command, these three ardent and faithful Hebrews were arrested, and brought before the king who, when they still refused to obey, had them thrown into a furnace which was so hot that those who cast them into the flames were overcome with the heat, and died. Later, however, it was discovered that these three Hebrews were unharmed in the flames, and a fourth person was seen with them—one like unto “the son of God.” (Dan. 3:25) A miracle had been performed. God’s name had been exalted, and the three Hebrews were returned to high positions in Nebuchadnezzar’s government.—Dan. 3:30
These Hebrews had not done wrong in defying the edicts of the state when it involved a matter of conscience. And, as The Christian Century points out, since the Catholic Church has openly declared war on the communist state, Cardinal Mindszenty had nothing of which to be ashamed by openly acknowledging that he was guilty of treason against such a state. No loyal Catholic could do otherwise.
And this raises the question as to why there is such bitter conflict between the Vatican and the Kremlin. To find the real answer it is necessary again to go back into history, for the struggle between these two mighty forces is not a new thing but rather a revival of an age-old conflict, the outcome of which will eventually affect every human being living on this earth.
We have already referred to the Babylonian prototype of the present-day totalitarian system of government, a system in which the state is virtually worshiped as God. Nebuchadnezzar, one of the early dictators, learned a great lesson through his inability to destroy the three Hebrews who defied his command, but this did not make an end of totalitarianism. When Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian Empire, the same system of government was perpetuated. The Grecian Empire succeeded the Medo-Persian, and it also was totalitarian. And the same was true of the Roman Empire, which overthrew Greece, although, in its earlier history it had experimented with a form of representative government—a republic.
When Rome reached the zenith of its power, it was known in history as the Pagan Roman Empire. Its ideology of state worship was emphasized by the fact that its imperators, or emperors, assumed the title Pontifex Maximus, meaning “chief religious ruler.” While these emperors professed to occupy this position, a few of them apparently did not interfere too much with the worship of the people unless it caused conflict with the state. The Jews, for example, were a conquered people under the Romans, yet their form of worship was not forbidden. When the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate and accused him of aspiring to be a king, while Pilate was not convinced that the charge was true, he could not ignore it, because it was a matter that involved the state.
Here again we see a similarity between the totalitarianism of that distant time, and the totalitarianism of today. It is claimed that in all countries behind the iron curtain, religionists who confine themselves exclusively to their religious services, are not interfered with. Whether or not this is wholly true there is apparently no way of knowing, but in any case this is the claim. It is said that there are some religious groups in Poland for which the communist government there provides free halls in which to meet.
Pagan Rome, however, was not as lenient toward the growing Christian church as it had been toward the Jews. But this may not have been altogether because of a policy change. There is historical evidence to show that as the church grew in numbers, some of its adherents became politically minded, hence the Roman state came to look upon all Christians as potential enemies. Under that regime there was bitter persecution of Christians. They were thrown to the lions, burned at the stake, and otherwise made to suffer.
But the church continued to grow, and as it did it came more and more to be a political challenge to Pagan Rome. The conflict was bitter, but finally, the church triumphed. Pagan Rome was overthrown, and its place was taken by Papal Rome. However, the change was not too great, for it meant merely that a new group of totalitarian rulers had taken the place of the old, and that a new, religious state assumed a dictatorship over the souls of men.
This was the beginning of the Roman ideology of church-state government. It was this system of government, the communists claim, that Cardinal Mindszenty was plotting to restore in Hungary, and that the Cardinal hoped he would have the privilege of crowning Otto (of the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine) as king. Whether or not this is true of Mindszenty, it is the sort of government the Vatican promoted for more than 1,200 years; and it is the kind of government which the Vatican still believes to be the only truly Christian government.
When Papal Rome gained the ascendancy over Pagan Rome, the adherents of the church were, of course, no longer persecuted—not, at least, as long as they obeyed the new head of the state. But persecution was revived, nevertheless, when individuals in increasing numbers were unable to subscribe to all the dogmas of the now ruling church. These persecutions under Papal Rome were more cruel than those practiced by the pagans. One protestant group after another was persecuted, and sometimes Protestants, in retaliation, persecuted Catholics—allegedly all in the name of the Lord, but to the shame of all who professed to be Christians, followers of the non-resistant Nazarene.
This supreme rule of Papal Rome finally began to wane, and was brought to a full end by Napoleon in the year 1799. Since then, Europe has been going through what Monsignor Sheen, the Catholic radio voice of America, has called the age of historical liberalism, which he has declared is now fast coming to an end. The world desires again, Monsignor Sheen declares, to be ruled by absolutism, or in other words, totalitarianism.
Sheen explains that the world is caught in the throes of a gigantic struggle between two forms of absolutism. He describes them as the god-man absolute, and the man-god absolute. In explanation, he said that the god-man absolute means that God exercises total authority through a man; while the man-god absolute means that a man exalts himself to a position where he is worshiped, and in which he demands the absolute obedience of his subjects in all matters, even in those pertaining to conscience.
In other words, the two opposing ideologies at war in the world today are the absolutism of Moscow and the absolutism of Rome. This, in reality, is the ancient struggle between Pagan and Papal Rome all over again. The setting is different, of course, but the principles are essentially the same. Which will win?
As indicated, the term Babylon is prominent in the Scriptures, both historically and prophetically. Because of the historical significance of the name, and the circumstances which were associated with ancient Babylon, the Lord applies the name to the great nominal church system of this age, particularly in connection with its association with the state. This symbolic Babylon is referred to in the Book of Revelation as “that great city that ruleth over the kings of the earth.”—Rev. 17:18
To identify this symbolic Babylon, therefore, all that is necessary is to note in history who it was that crowned and uncrowned the kings of Europe for so many centuries, who promoted the holy (?) and unholy wars of that era. This identification is too obvious to escape.
At the same time, throughout the prophecies of the Bible, there is the repeated assurance that all these attempts of men will fail, and that the Lord himself will set up a kingdom, and that this will be in answer to every true Christian’s prayer, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heaven.”—Matt. 6:10
While the counterfeit of this kingdom is described in prophecy as that great city Babylon, the true kingdom of Christ is represented as a holy city, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from God out of heaven, and that through this new kingdom arrangement, God will dwell with the people and bless them with health and life and joy.—Rev. 21:2-5
The true church will be a part of that kingdom of Christ. They will reign with him, not as human beings, but as resurrected new creatures. (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) They prove their worthiness of this high exaltation by following in Jesus’ footsteps even unto death, suffering and dying with him. They do not attempt to reign now, nor in any way to interfere with the governments of this world. But like Jesus, they would rather die than violate their consciences by obedience to laws which are contrary to the will of God for them.
When we view the matter from this standpoint, while we should be sympathetic with all suffering, we can rest in the assurance that God’s plan to establish a righteous government is not being destroyed, and that the very things which are now occurring in the world are among the evidences that the true kingdom of the Lord is near, even at the door.