Posted on 11/30/2007 1:17:41 PM PST by NYer
Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticized atheism in a major document released Friday, saying it had led to some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known.
In his second encyclical, Benedict also critically questioned modern Christianity, saying its focus on individual salvation had ignored Jesus' message that true Christian hope involves salvation for all.
The document, titled "Saved by Hope," is a deeply theological exploration of Christian hope: that in the suffering and misery of daily life, Christianity provides the faithful with a "journey of hope" to the Kingdom of God.
"We must do all we can to overcome suffering, but to banish it from the world is not in our power," Benedict wrote. "Only God is able to do this."
An encyclical is the most important papal document, addressed to all members of the 1 billion-member Roman Catholic Church.
In the 76-page document, Benedict elaborated on how the Christian understanding of hope had changed in the modern age, when man sought to relieve the suffering and injustice in the world. Benedict points to two historical upheavals: the French Revolution and the proletarian revolution instigated by Karl Marx.
Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time.
"A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God," he wrote. But he said the idea that mankind can do what God cannot by creating a new salvation on Earth was "both presumptuous and intrinsically false."
"It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," he wrote. "A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope."
He specifically cited Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, and the "intermediate phase" of dictatorship that Marx saw as necessary in the revolution.
"This 'intermediate phase' we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction," Benedict wrote.
"The pope's concern is that you have secularizing forces that are trying to eliminate religion from public and private life," said Monsignor Robert Wister, professor of church history at Seton Hall University in the United States.
"In most countries, political Marxism is dead (but) philosophical Marxism is very much alive and it fuels the secularizing philosophy often seen in Europe and North America," Wister said.
At the same time, Benedict also looks critically at the way modern Christianity had responded to the times, saying such a "self-critique" was also necessary.
"We must acknowledge that modern Christianity, faced with the successes of science in progressively structuring the world, has to a large extent restricted its attention to the individual and his salvation," he wrote. "In doing so, it has limited the horizon of its hope and has failed to recognize sufficiently the greatness of its task."
The Christian concept of hope and salvation, he says, was not always so individual-centric.
Quoting scripture and theologians, Benedict says salvation had in the earlier church been considered "communal" — illustrating his point by using the case of monks in the Middle Ages who cloistered themselves in prayer not just for their own salvation but for that of others.
"How could the idea have developed that Jesus' message is narrowly individualistic and aimed only at each person singly? How did we arrive at this interpretation of the 'salvation of the soul' as a flight from responsibility for the whole, and how did we come to conceive the Christian project as a selfish search for salvation which rejects the idea of serving others?" he asked.
While seeking to provide answers, he also says there are ways for the faithful to learn and practice true Christian hope: in prayer, in suffering, in taking action and in looking at the Last Judgment as a symbol of hope.
Rev. Robert Gahl, professor of ethics at Rome's Santa Croce University, said the pope's message was "tremendously relevant" for today's materialistic societies "where people put hope in science and medical cures."
"Saved by Hope," which Benedict largely penned this past summer while on vacation, follows his first encyclical, "God is Love," released last year. With these two encyclicals, which are the most authoritative documents a pope can issue, Benedict has explored two of the three Christian theological virtues: faith, hope and love.
"We all ask ourselves if there will be a third encyclical on faith," said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman. "It cannot be excluded, but it's not planned."
It’s only fair. After all, atheists criticize the Pope.
He is criticizing Socialism ?
Isn’t this the same Pope who a few months ago admonished wealthy Italians to stop trying to legally avoid taxes because the Italian government needed the money for more Socialist spending programs ?
Where do you see a mention of socialism?
I’ve read the encyclical twice and I have read 3 news reports on the encyclical. All 3 have highlighted this theme, that the document blasts atheism. Well, I suppose it does, but the deeper message is this: God has arranged the human virtues and desires in such a way that there is a gradation in meaning and satisfaction in them. So, in the encyclical on Love (Deus Caritas Est), B XVI made the case that there exists a variety of loves, but all flow from the source of Love; and now, in the encyclical on Hope, he makes the case that humans entertain low, middle, and high hopes in life, but there exists the Hope Greater than All Hopes which propels our lives forward even in the most horrible circumstances. From my reading, that’s the real message of the encyclical, but it doesn’t make a good headline.
I am looking forward to reading this one. Benedict is explaining what Vatican II actually said and meant.
“... the proletarian revolution instigated by Karl Marx.
Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution...”
Marx and Engel were the fathers of Socialism and Communism. So he appears to be critical of socialism now, even though he recently berated Italy’s rich from using overseas banks to shield some of their income from taxes, because it was their duty to give that money to the state so it could provide for the people of Italy.
Maybe he isn’t criticizing Marx *and* the atheist revolution he spawned, but just the atheist revolution alone, while the socialist revolution itself was OK ?
I’m not sure how not believing in a religious doctrine equates to believing in a dictatorship of the proletariat, but whatever.
I don’t either, but the Pope seems to think atheism was the driving force behind the Socialist and Communist revolutions.
While Marx, Stalin and Castro were atheists, so was Ayn Rand. Rand was just about the biggest supporter of capitalism you could find and she denounced all forms of socialism.
I like your tagline, by the way. It’s so true. The Left has a blind faith in an all-knowing, benevolent, omnipotent Creationist Government from which all things flow.
The Popes have been condemning socialism, and related "isms" for quite some time. Below is the beginning of an encyclical written by Pope Leo XIII in 1878.
At the very beginning of Our pontificate, as the nature of Our apostolic office demanded, we hastened to point out in an encyclical letter addressed to you, venerable brethren, the deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibers of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction; at the same time We pointed out also the most effectual remedies by which society might be restored and might escape from the very serious dangers which threaten it. But the evils which We then deplored have so rapidly increased that We are again compelled to address you, as though we heard the voice of the prophet ringing in Our ears: "Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet."1 You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning—the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.
The Pope’s position is that Christianity in itself is not an economic system, although obviously some systems may be more favorable than others.
He criticizes Marxism not only for its atheism, but for the fact that it regards man as an entirely economic being, having no life outside of his economic condition. But the position of the Church is that his real life is elsewhere. In other words, the economic sphere is, in a sense, the backdrop for the individual’s life and choices. Anything that does not impede his moral choices is neutral.
Socialism, however, usually implies statism, and the Pope is very opposed to this. It’s possible that there could be benevolent, basically paternalistic systems that would not only receive work and taxes, but provide some level of care, but without taking away man’s initiative and free will. It’s a perhaps overly idealistic vision of an integrated society, where people do what it is best for them to do, but no one starves to death if his job isn’t in the top money making category; instead, those top money makers (who ultimately depend on the people at the bottom) see themselves as having a responsibility to help the rest, upon whom they actually depend for labor, etc.
Starting in the early part of the 20th century, there were many Catholic businesses that were essentially paternalistic in nature, because this was a Catholic solution to the conflict between an all-powerful state and a completely savage capitalism. In other words, the successful capitalist had responsibilities, and if he fulfilled them, this prevented the state from taking over.
I remember that even as late as the 1960s, the (very Catholic) Schrafft’s restaurant chain regarded itself as a sort of complete world, helping employees send their kids to college, working things out when they were sick, etc. It’s actually quite effective, and is one of the reasons that the Marxists in Latin America always attack the best businesses, the people who help the poor, etc. They want to reduce man to an economic unit again.
“In other words, the economic sphere is, in a sense, the backdrop for the individual’s life and choices. Anything that does not impede his moral choices is neutral.”
That sounds like a fine attitude for the church to take.
(This and other articles on the newest Encyclical do seem negative toward socialism, but I wish he wouldn’t mix atheism into it. While all Marxists are atheists, not all atheists are Marxists.)
There are still some of his comments about taxation that bother me. As a fiscal conservative, I hold it to be immoral to advocate taking away wealth that was honestly obtained. Each person should pay an equal share of government services, and there is no moral formula whereby tax burden can be lighter or heavier based on a person’s ability to pay. That is a tenet of Marxism — “FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his need” is the slogan from the Communist Manifesto. So if Popes have been fighting against Marxism for centuries, Benedict’s stand on taxation seems out of place.
Yet your comments jibe with his “social justice” view that the wealthy somehow “owe” somebody else for their wealth. That cannot be true as long as capitalism is free to do its job of promoting willing exchanges between people. Wealth cannot be created in a capitalist system without the willing exchange of value for value, so the possessor of wealth has paid fairly at each stage of its creation and “owes” nobody anything at the end. Only when the state applies force or one person exerts force on another can wealth be tainted since it was not obtained through a series of willing exchanges. To say that taking wealth away from somebody is moral is the same as suggesting the wealth was obtained dishonestly.
Could you cite that? Catholic teaching has always held that taxation above 10% is immoral.
“So he appears to be critical of socialism now, even though he recently berated Italy’s rich from using overseas banks to shield some of their income from taxes, because it was their duty to give that money to the state so it could provide for the people of Italy.”
Yes, but one can also argue that paying taxes is the duty owed to the temporal authorities, which Christians are supposed to be obey as well as long as the State does not enact laws compelling what God has forbidden or forbidding what God has commanded.
The answer is probably “What is the nature of the taxation, and what is the nature of avoiding taxes?” before we make a blanket condemnation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2237625.ece
Although you seem to have misunderstood me. Any percentage-based tax is immoral as it is a measure of someone’s ability to pay rather than an equal sharing of the burden of government costs. It is Marxist since it takes FROM based on ability.
Under a 10% tax on income, the man who earns a billion dollars is supposed to pay 100 million dollars for the same government protections that a poor man might pay only 1000 dollars for.
If the cost of government is a trillion dollars, and there are 100 million people, then each person owes the same $10,000 amount. It is immoral to use government to forcibly extract 100 million dollars from one man while another man is forced to pay only 1000 dollars. The only moral government, then, is the one that can be afforded by EVERY citizen.
It’s funny, but on another thread somebody mentioned HOAs (Home Owners Associations) as the most local form of government — below city, county, state, and federal. It is true that an HOA must collect “taxes” to pay for those common services each homeowner must have, as well as enforce the rules the homeowners have agreed to live under. And they “tax” in the most equitable fashion. Each homeowner pays the same. Even though there are wide gaps in income levels, the HOA dues are not based on a percentage of those incomes.
**Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution**
BTTT!
Gotta love him all the way!
**While seeking to provide answers, he also says there are ways for the faithful to learn and practice true Christian hope: in prayer, in suffering, in taking action and in looking at the Last Judgment as a symbol of hope. **
Amen and another bump!
What I was trying to say is that the traditional Catholic view - which is reflected by BXVI - is not statist. It is based on individuals and their social interconnection.
Paternalist companies were not state corporations, but family or individually owned companies that believed in things such as paying a decent wage or providing some security to their non-executive employees. It may not have been obligatory that they do this; but a Christian employer or business owner does actually have a connection with the rest of the world that is not based solely on what is profitable to him. He needs to provide just payment, good working conditions, an environment in which Christians can practice their religion, etc.
This movement was very big in industrial areas at the beginning of the last century, particularly in areas where there was a Communist threat. I remember reading about a foundry company in Barcelona where the good Catholic family had established a sort of residential community for the workers, and in addition had funds for things such as medical care and for their children to attend school and college. But it was more personal than that.
One of the workers slipped and fell and was burned by the hot metal. This was at the very dawn of skin grafts, but before the concept of anesthesia was very well developed. The owner of the company showed up at the doctor’s the next day and, with virtually no anesthesia, let them slice strips of skin off his body to graft onto his employee.
It was a concept of personal responsibility. Is is mandatory? No. But is it Christian to go one step further and really care about your employees or people less successful than you are? I think so.
The problem is that the state stepped in and took over many functions that had once been performed by the good Christian, usually, alas, doing them all badly and experieincing unexpected side-effects (witness the effects of state-supplied welfare...).
**he makes the case that humans entertain low, middle, and high hopes in life, but there exists the Hope Greater than All Hopes which propels our lives forward even in the most horrible circumstances. **
This sounds totally reasonable. But as you said, the media doesn’t like it, because they like to portray the worst case scenarios -— not hope, for goodness sake!
So, then, why would the current Pope admonish people for trying to avoid paying taxes ?
Why not plead with them to be more charitable and support those private organizations that once served those functions so much better than governments do ?
Why not admonish government instead, and exhort the people to cancel these government programs that have performed so poorly, so private non-profit organizations can reassume those functions ?
The only answer that comes to mind is that he lacks faith in people’s sense of charity, and has rather more faith in the force of government to extract what he thinks won’t be freely given.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Atheism was the driving force behind these revolutions because they were based on Utopian thinking: Life here on earth CAN be perfect and we humans can make it happen (NO Original Sin). A corollary would be: And we don’t need God to accomplish it. The foundational thinking is in error.
render unto Caesar
And what if Caesar has overstepped and taken control of activities traditionally belonging to the church ?
You don’t see the paradox of the Pope declaiming Socialism as a failure and yet encouraging people to feed the Socialist beast ?
Can you see that two wrongs don't make a right? Socialism is wrong. Breaking the law is wrong. In this particular instance, the Pope was pointing out that breaking the law was wrong. There is a big difference between that and "encouraging people to feed the Socialist beast." If the law in question is wrong, then it is up to the people who voted the legislators into office to elect legislators who will change or eliminate said law. Apparently Italians, and Americans, want socialism. The Catholic Church does not get directly involved in politics. It speaks out on the moral aspects of issues.
“Let us put it very simply: Man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”
- Pope Benedict XVI
The state cannot be an instrument of economic justice, beyond a certain point. As Aristotle said, every state is governed by its owners, and where its assets are owned by an elite, that elite will avoid any taxation that fundamentally harms its interests. If a revolutionary clique takes power, it will take from the former elite but then reassign assets to the new elite, with the people getting only a small portion. For instance, the slave-owning class in the American South was dispossesed of its accumulated wealth in money and slaves. It was allowed to keep the land, but eventually its wealth passed into the hands of northern capitalists and local lenders. Neither the poor whites nor the freed slaves gained much of the profits of the economy of “New South.”
[The Catholic Church does not get directly involved in politics.]
The Pope did not say the people should follow the law in a generic sense. He commented on a SPECIFIC law — taxation and the use of tax havens. That is pretty direct.
Is he running for political office? Is he supporting a specific politician? Is he working for a specific campaign? Is he working at the polls?
Breaking a specific law is wrong. He is speaking from a moral perspective, not a political perspective. Expressing the Catholic point of view on a subject in the public square is not direct participation in politics.
[Breaking a specific law is wrong.]
Breaking ANY law is wrong. Why not just leave it at that ? Why speak in support of a specific law ? Why not simply remind the public that they should follow ALL the laws they have voted to put in place ?
Why place particular emphasis on a law that has as its sole purpose the redistibution of wealth ? The redistribution of wealth is a socialist goal, and yet Socialism is something the Pope is speaking against in this exact same Encyclical. Seems like he’s a flip-flopper.
Um, because a specific law was being broken. He didn't chose which law to speak about. That was done by the criminals he was addressing. His emphasis was on the moral wrong of breaking the law not on the particular law being broken. It is possible to be against the law that is being broken as well as the action of breaking the law.
Why place particular emphasis on a law that has as its sole purpose the redistribution of wealth?
Again, he didn't make the choice, he was responding to actions by others that included breaking a specific law. Condemning their actions does not necessarily mean advocating the law that is being broken.
“Again, he didn’t make the choice...”
That’s ridiculous. You are telling me there were no murders, robberies, rapes, corporate embezzlement, fraud, spousal abuse, welfare cheating, etc. that caught his attention ????????? All the other laws were being obeyed, except the tax laws ? Of course not. He looked at society and DECIDED that the wealthy protecting some of their money from being redistributed to the less wealthy was a worse ill than murders, rapes, etc. He very definitely made a choice.
You don't read or listen to what the Pope has to say do you? He is almost constantly talking about the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death, the need to observe human rights, etc. He can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. Not every utterance has to address every moral ill of modern society.
Isn’t an Encyclical at a higher level than just “talking” ? Isn’t this only his second Encyclical ?
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.