Posted on 10/22/2009 7:34:31 AM PDT by kronos77
Amid the worst recession in generations, Karl Marx, who famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, got a thumbs up from the Vatican overturning a century of Catholic hostility to his creed.
Marx, who predicted that capitalism would be destroyed by its internal contradictions, has joined Galileo, Charles Darwin and Oscar Wilde on a growing list of historical figures to have undergone an unlikely reappraisal by the Roman Catholic Church, The Times newspaper said on Thursday.
The British daily, quoting the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, said Marx’s early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the “social alienation” felt by the “large part of humanity” that remained excluded from economic and political decision-making.
Amid signs of recovery in global financial markets, Christian leaders have flayed the capitalist system for displaying a lack of moral values, arguing that ethical debates needs to be given greater prominence.
Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, argues that Marx’s work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking “a new harmony” between its needs and the natural environment.
The report quoted Prof. Sans as saying that Marx’s theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.
(Excerpt) Read more at beta.thehindu.com ...
The Church's position on marxism has been very clear for decades.
Funny how we forget that John Paul II publicly lectured Castro and the Sandanista regime on the empty philosophy of Marx.
And all of which is being spun by a Hindu newspaper to fit an agenda.
We were fortunate to have a Pope for so many years who had lived under Communist oppression and who comprehended the fact that Communists hate the Church. Now that Benedict has taken his eye off that ball, all of the Liberation Theology types from the 70’s are crawling out from under their rocks.
Kinda blows the credibility factor, doesn't it?
Within a church body,
it is often the case that we are a “bit socialist”, or at least “communal”.
This is entirely the case within a nuclear family, of course.
The mistake happens when this is extrapolated to the society at large.
This is similar to the macro vs micro evolution argument.
Yes, change occurs within a species, but to extrapolate that is just, well, unfounded extrapolation.
Isn’t the Marxist ideal that the Government decides everything?
An important point to make. Merely censoring Marx (or any other writer) is foolish. There's nothing wrong with studying a thing that has affected great numbers of people. And there's nothing wrong with accepting the true bits as true.
Is anyone suggesting that the common man in the 19th Century was not alienated from political and economic decisions affecting his life? Most people were living under monarchs at the time.
A newspaper called The Hindu refers to an article in the English newspaper, The Times. The article in The Times to which The Hindu refers itself refers to an article in L’Osservatore Romano.
As we read the article in The Hindu we find that the article in L’Osservatore Romano which is referred to in The Times is actually from a Jesuit periodical called La Civiltattolica. (I wonder if this might really be La Civiltà Cattolica.)
But from this collection of sources we are now to indulge in a new orgy of Catholic bashing on the grounds that some Hindus are reporting that some Protestants are reporting that the Vatican newspaper is reporting that an article in a Jesuit newspaper said that Marx was relevant.
Is that it? If so, knock yourselves out. Everybody needs a hobby.
"the Vatican said today ..."
Marxism and all (state) collectivism is predicated on humanist assumptions (see tagline).
These assumptions are that elite humans are capable of making superior decisions - decisions about how people live their lives, better than the people actually living those live. They substitute their goals for the goals of the individual. They don’t believe God will take care of the bigger plan when people take care of their own business. They believe that a superior human must invoke the bigger plan.
The Doctrine of Subsidiarity cannot be reconciled with marxism, from Wikipedia:
“Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming (according to the Information expert design guideline). Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism.
The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching.”
The US Constitution is also founded on the Doctrine of Subsidiarity—see, for example, the 10th Amendment.
The article is bogus.
The liberals in the Church know that their time is up soon, and that they've left few (if any) ideological children in the younger generations - so they're making as much noise as they can.
A new era is coming to the Church - one of greater sanity. The younger generation of priests, and especially the current generation of seminarians are more interested in learning and teaching the Faith instead of working with the strange, failed ideas of the liberals.
Someone at L'Osservatore Romano is trying to get a little attention. Fortunately, L'Osservatore Romono has absolutely zero authority.
Is anybody quoted in L'Osservatore Romano considered a member of the heirarchy now? Give me a break.
While I strongly maintain that LO should be reined in (for this and other reasons), I must say you are off target here because "L'Osservatore Romano" ain't "the Vatican." It's a daily newspaper which, while it does publish approved translations of official Church texts, otherwise operates as an independent newspaper whose masthead motto is Unicuique suum ("To each his own").
True, "the Vatican" (by which I mean the clerical bureaucracy which runs the church government) has been characterized by "Good Doctrine; Bad Discipline" for years, and if you can't think of a dozen pathetic examples right off the top of your head, I can do so myself.
But the "teaching Church" (meaning the Ecumenical Councils, the Pope and the bishops who are in union with him, the Catechisms which faithfully convey their teachings) draw a bright and unmistakable line against Communism.
Why must you reinforce the toxic impression (as the EneMedia always does) that any Marxist renegade or modernist wackadoo they can put into the headlines is "speaking for the Church"?
Why add to the Enemy's incessant and insididous "divide and conquer" strategy?
Unfaithful Catholics should not force faithful Catholics out of Catholicism. Just like Olympia Snowe and Michael Dukakis (to take just two US examples) or Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky shouldn't force faithful Orthodox out of Orthodoxy.
This always strikes me as ironic: Catholics church shop for
conservative or liberal parishes. I understand that you will
tell me that they are all still RC, but when you come right down to it this is remarkably similar to what other Christians
do.
But this encyclical doesn’t talk about the state. In fact it says directly
“The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11]”
Thanks for the clarifying post. I used to be surprised when I’d see junk articles like these posted and taken as gospel truth by anti-Catholics here on FR.
No more. It seems there is no depth too low for them to crawl, but probably not. I’ve never seen one apologize for anything twisted yet.
>>but when you come right down to it this is remarkably similar to what other Christians do.<<
I agree. But the difference is that Our parish Priests (who are human) have their own ideas about politics. We can’t ditch them and find a new one. We move ourselves and our cash to a new parish if we disagree with their politics.
Looks like they say that the Church doesn’t have the technical ability to implement the system
and therefore, inherently endorses the State to do so.
A newspaper called The Hindu refers to an article in the English newspaper, The Times. The article in The Times to which The Hindu refers itself refers to an article in L’Osservatore Romano.
As we read the article in The Hindu we find that the article in L’Osservatore Romano which is referred to in The Times is actually from a Jesuit periodical called La Civiltattolica. (I wonder if this might really be La Civiltà Cattolica.)
But from this collection of sources we are now to indulge in a new orgy of Catholic bashing on the grounds that some Hindus are reporting that some Protestants are reporting that the Vatican newspaper is reporting that an article in a Jesuit newspaper said that Marx was relevant.
You nailed it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.