Page 146 of the Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies says that Vatican II “provided inspiration to reform-minded Catholics and opened the door to laity and clergy alike to engage in radical social and political involvement.” This is an important point. Vatican II sought to tear down the boundaries between clergy and laity, particularly in order to stress that laity have as much responsibility to live Christ-like lives as do clergy. Laity in fact, are a kingdom of priests, and differ from those who hold the title “father” only by degree. One of the interesting things about the Lumen gentium document is that in explaining the difference between laity and clergy it seems to relegate each to a different sphere: clergy minister and witness (primarily) in the church, whereas laity minister and witness in the secular sphere. In its own words: “By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the
In Rethinking Soteriology (reproduced in Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings), Gutierrez makes a number of interesting comments about two Vatican II documents: Gaudium et spes and Populum progressio. The documents discuss the topic of developmentalism at some length. They affirm the need for economic development in struggling nations, but emphasize that this must be an “integral” development. Further, they acknowledge the difficulties inherent in a developmentalist approach. Often “developing nations” fall behind and become increasingly dependent upon wealthier nations. These nations and their people, according to the council, need to be liberated from this sort of “undue dependence”. Development, says Gaudium et spes, must be “geared to the service of humankind.” The developmentalist approaches currently in play have tended, more often than not, to fail utterly. Gutierrez has applied his Marxist social analysis and extended this aspect of the council’s analysis. According to Gutierrez, the council would have done better not to call for “development” at all, and rather to use outright the language of liberation. He also says that the
The Vatican II documents also criticize an overly optimistic view of human progress, a criticism with which Gutierrez wholeheartedly agrees. Many modern atheist philosophers believed that society would naturally progress, becoming over time more and more just. This process would eventually result in an economic and social liberation for all people. The council argued, rightly, that liberation must be more broadly understood. It must be a “genuine and total” liberation, encompassing both economic/political needs and the need for a full and free life. This kind of liberation cannot be accomplished by purely human efforts. Gutierrez expands: we must work for the kingdom and we can accomplish some good things on its behalf, but ultimately the kingdom is a gift that will be fully realized at the Second Coming.
Perhaps the most important thing the council did, in Gutierrez’s mind, was to affirm human dignity, human responsibility to our brothers, and the need for a new society/humanity. This last point is especially significant to Gutierrez. For him, the new society must be a socialist system that does away with the ideology of the oppressor and replaces it with the ideology of the oppressed. It must be a society free of capitalist domination imposed by foreign corporations. The new society may even need to be imposed by violent revolution, though for the time being Gutierrez prefers to emphasize more constructive means.
2 comments:
This last point is especially significant to Gutierrez. For him, the new society must be a socialist system that does away with the ideology of the oppressor and replaces it with the ideology of the oppressed.
I think that is a false conclusion. Capitolism has its faults in the eyes of the Catholic Church but socialism isn't the answer.
All three popes who have come into contact with modern Socialism, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, have formally condemned it, both as a general doctrine and with regard to specific points. The bishops and clergy, the lay experts on social and economic questions, the philosophers, the theologians, and practically the whole body of the faithful are unanimous in their acceptance of the condemnation.
Several encyclicals condemn the basic premise of socializism such as Leo XIII's "Rerum novarum."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
From the link you provided:
4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
I think the Pope is referring more to true communism than to socialism as it is frequently defined today. In other words, there are varying degrees of socialism; socialism does not necessarily do away with all private property. As for the Pope's comments about nationalization of property being robbery of the rightful possessor, I find that very interesting; it would tend to militate against any kind of taxation whatsoever. I think maybe you seriously need to consider the possibility that the Pope was just wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure!
Post a Comment