Abstract
While Karl Marx was writing the Communist Manifesto, Pope Leo the Thirteenth was composing his encyclical on the “Conditions of the Working Classes” – De Rerum Novarum.1 This was considered at the time to be a giant step forward in liberal thinking. In light of past history, it was. But it was also a belated attempt to win the laboring class of Europe back to a Church that for too long had in practice affiliated itself with the regimes in power. Still, there is some excuse for the slowness of approach of those days. The institutional Church needed state help and a certain practical jolt would have to be given to the whole ecclesial framework that people just didn’t seem ready for. Many of the powerful ecclesiastics believed that the Rock of Peter signified not only permanence but immobility. To many both inside and out the Catholic Church was looked on as a monolithic structure; there she stands with her century old liturgy, vestments, doctrine and creed, and these had withstood all the changes of the Reformation. This was its boast, and for some even its mark of genuineness. But this was before evolution was seen in its sociological and historical implications and before the notion of the “person” had fully developed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See Roger Garaudy’s “Vom Bannfluch zum Dialog” in Der Dialog (Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1966), pp. 93–94:“Die Grundthese wird dann von Papst Pius X am 18. Dezember 1903 in ihrer ganzen Allgemeinheit entwickelt:‘Die menschliche Gesellschaft, so wie sie Gott eingerichtet hat, ist aus ungleichen Elementen zusammengesetzt. Folglich entspricht es der von Gott gewollten Ordnung, dass es in der menschlichen Gesellschaft Fuersten und Untertanen, Unternehmer und Proletarier, Reiche und Arme, Gelehrte und Unwissende, Adlige und Plebejer gibt… Die Enzyklika ‘Quadragesimo Anno’ (1931) zog ausdrücklich folgende Schlussfolgerung:‘Die Arbeiter sollen ohne Groll die Stelle einnehmen, die die göttliche Vorsehung ihnen zugewiesen hat.’ ”
Pius XI, encyclical letter “Quadragesimo Anno,” AAS 23 (1931).
Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter “Mater et Magistra,” AAS 53 (1961); and “Pacem in Terris” AAS 55 (1963) esp. p. 226; also pp. 59-67.
This Council, Vatican II, is addressed to the whole of humanity, p. 200. Further on page 204:“At the same time’ socialization’ brings further ties without, however, always promoting appropriate personal development and truly personal relationships (personalization).” Also p. 207:“In addition, nations try harder every day to bring about a kind of universal community.” And p. 208:“Thinking that they have found serenity in an interpretation of reality everywhere proposed these days, many look forward to a genuine and total emancipation of humanity wrought solely by human effort. They are convinced that the future role of man over the earth will satisfy every desire of his heart.”
A report on this meeting is given by Peter Hebblethwaite, S.J., “Learning from Marxists” in the Month, June 1966 (vol. 35, No. 6), pp. 360-368. Also in the introduction to the following books:Schriften zum Weltgespräch 1 — Marxistisches und Christliches Weltverständnis mit einem Nachwort von Iring Fetscher (Wien-Freiburg:Herder, 1966). And Der Dialog oder Ändert sich das Verhältnis zwischen Katholizismus and Marxismus? (Hamburg:Rowohlt Verlag, 1966).
Professor Garaudy has several chapters in the above-mentioned volume entitled Der Dialog.
We have mentioned Fr. Wetter’s two books, Dialectical Materialism and Soviet Ideology Today. Hans Urs Von Balthasar in Glaubhaft ist nur Liebe, p. 47 has this to say about Fessard:“Es ist zumindest sehr gefährlich, wenn Gaston Fessard, S.J. das Exerzitienbuch nach Hegel interpretiert (La Dialectique des Exercices spirituels de S. Ignace de Loyola, Aubier 1956); wenn auch gewiss Gottes Selbsterschliessung im Bund sich in die dialektische Struktur des Welt-und Geschichtslogos einschreibt, so ist Gott doch niemals selber dieser Logos, dessen der denkende Christ — wie dialektisch und existentiell auch immer — sich vergewissern kann. Deshalb ist es richtig, wenn Erich Przywara (Analogia Entis I–II, 1962) die gesamte Dialektik weltlichen Denkens in Philosophie und Theologie sich in sich selber verbinden lässt–angesichts des immer unbewältigten, je-grösser aufgehenden Mysteriums der göttlichen Liebe.”
Studies in Soviet Thought. A quarterly of the Institute of East-European Studies at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
Adam Schaff, A Philosophy of Man, p. 135:“We may leave aside here the question of the origin and social source of the differences which distinguish a Marxist from a Thomist, an Existentialist or an adherent of any other form of non-Marxist philosophy. But Thomists, Existentialists, Marxists and all, if they are to retain their common sense in matters of philosophy, must agree that the advocates of private property in means of production and those who advocate the social ownership of the means of production entertain different values and different ideas of the proper way of running a modern society. And this is precisely a difference of ideology.” Also see Karl Marx, Alienated Labor, p. 93 et seq. J. Maritain, The Person and the Common Good, pp. 56-57.
Cf. the article on “Private Property” by Edward Duff in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York:McGraw Hill Company, 1967, vol. XI, pp. 849-855:“The obligation of sharing one’s wealth was emphasized in the patristic age, since common ownership was judged to be God’s original plan, vitiated by the fall of man, whose avarice makes necessary and legitimate the institution of private property as a human invention and not a part of the absolute law of nature. St. Augustine viewed property as the creation of positive rather than of divine law, being elaborated by the state as an instrument for maintaining order among fallen men. The distribution of material goods among men, the actuating of the right to procure and dispose of property, St. Thomas assigns to conventions among men, including acts by the state (ST IIa IIae, 66.2 ad 1.). In consequence, it is as a general social institution that private property is said to be unchangeable and dictated by the natural law.”
Vat. II, p. 231:“Hence many benefits once looked for, especially from heavenly power, man has now enterprisingly procured for himself.” And p. 234:“Therefore, if methodological investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith. For earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. Indeed, whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, is, even unawares, being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity.” And then follows a new exhortation in this regard:“Consequently we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, sometimes found, too, among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science. The arguments and controversies which they spark lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.” And G. A. Wetter, Soviet Ideology Today, p. 250:“… and since then (Stalin’s day) Soviet ideology has also begun to detach other mental phenomena from the system, starting with formal logic and the contents of the five areas of science.”
For example the Marxist from Zagreb, Professor Bosnjak writes:“Damit in Verbindung erklärt Teilhard de Chardin auch das Phänomen des Christentums. Der Punkt ‘Omega’ ist kein solches Ziel, das man während des Lebens nicht fühlen und das sich einem erst am Ende enthüllen würde. Dieser Punkt ist der ständige Sinn als Zentrum des Universums. Gott oder das Omega ist das Zentrum der Zentren. Deswegen hat auch das Dogma von Jesus für Teilhard de Chardin eine andere Bedeutung als in der christlichen Dogmatik. Jesus sammelt die gesamte Geisteskraft um sich herum. Ein Ende wird erst dann eintreten, wenn sich die gesamte Kraft auch angesammelt hat und wenn alles transformiert wird. Dann würde nur Gott verbleiben als alles in allem, d.h. das wäre eine Personal-union mit dem Universum. Und das ist eigentlich Pantheismus.” Cf. Marxistisches und Christliches Weltverständnis, pp. 53–54. The new point that Teilhard introduces into Christian thought is that we do not wait until another life to fulfill our goal, but that we begin it here in this world as we work out our lives with the help of the divine energy. The Marxists, of course, turn this into Pantheism.
V. V. Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy. (Trans, by George L. Kline, 2 volumes) New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), Vol. I, p. 46:“The figure of Cyril Stavrovetski is typical in this connection; he published a book called a ‘Mirror of Theology’ (1618) in which the influence of Thomism could already be felt.” And on p. 48:“Moscow was still jealous in its quest for Greek scholars (the brothers Lichud et al), but the fashion for everything Little-Russian prevailed.” Cf. also pp. 20-54; 103-104.
See Bosnjak, Marxistisches und Christliches Verständnis, p. 54:“Sobald die Religion als eine Privatsache anerkannt worden ist, wird sie mit dem Sozialismus ko-existent.”
Cf. Grundlagen der Marxistischen Philosophie, p. 11:“Der Marxismus stellt eine einheitliche, harmonische Lehre dar, die drei Bestandteile hat:die Philosophie, die politische Ökonomie und die Theorie des wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus. Diese drei Bestandteile des Marxismus stehen in einem inneren, untrennbaren Zusammenhang miteinander.”
Cf. I. M. Bochenski, Soviet Russian Dial. Mat., pp. 57–74.
Adam Schaff, A Phil, of Man, p. 130:“But hunger and want are not the only widespread social causes of unhappiness. Such are also the lack of freedom, national oppression, economic exploitation of racial persecution and all other expressions of social inequality. In all such cases people are deprived of what they need … Obviously, there are other deprivations which also make the individual unhappy. For instance, unrequited love or unsatisfied ambition. These are so common that they can be regarded as typical social phenomena. But there is a basic difference between such deprivations and those which we have considered above … Hence, social intervention is possible to remove deprivations of the first category, since by changing the social relations the source of the individual’s unhappiness can be eliminated. But society cannot intervene to remove deprivations of the second sort.”
Vat. II, p. 450.
Vat. II, p. 260.
Sydney Hook, Marx and the Marxists. (New York: D. van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1953), p. 102. Cf. also Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1961), pp. 81 et seq.
G. A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 114. This is especially emphasized in Lenin’s work published in 1902, entitled:What is to be done?
G. A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 123.
G. A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 123.
Cf. Garaudy, Der Dialog, pp. 91–94.
Vat. II, p. 63.
One of the Dutch bishops recently made it clear in Holland that Catholics are under no obligation to support Cathalic political parties.
Bosnjak, Marxistisches und Christliches Weltverständnis, pp. 44–45.
A critical edition of St. Thomas’ Commentary on the ‘De Trinitate’ of Boethius, has been published by Fr. Wyser, O.P. at Fribourg University in Switzerland.
Vat. II, pp. 194–300.
Karl Marx, Alienated Labor, p. 101:“Or, rather, he is only a self-conscious being, i.e. his own life is an object for him, because he is a species-being. Only for this reason is his activity free activity.”
Gerhard Szczesny, The Future of Unbelief. Translated from the German by Edward B. Garside. (New York:George Braziller, 1961), pp. 163–164:“The very word and concept of ‘freedom’ tends to give us a false impression of what freedom really is. The point is, the structure of a language reflects that understanding of the world in vogue during its formative period. And since we are insensibly guided in our thinking by available linguistic images and concepts, we must constantly bear in mind that they must be tested for current applicability… The same holds true for ‘freedom.’ It is not to be thought of as a condition, but as a ‘freeing oneself from’ while simultaneously ‘binding oneself to’ something else. In sum, here freedom represents a transfer of self-committment. A man who follows a moral motive rather than an instinctual stimulus, because of the greater strength of his striving toward the human, releases himself from the causal connectedness of the animal level and binds himself to the ‘motivational’ connectedness of the moral sphere. This act which has the coloration of his particular character, he feels to be ‘free,’ since at the moment when it occurs, he is conscious of leaving the instinctual drive behind. Man behaves ‘freely,’ therefore, when he identifies himself with the level that makes him specifically human. Nevertheless when he has done this, his decisions are still bound by causality and motivation, that is, by the general lawfulness of the sphere from which causality and motivation now emanate. There is no invasion of necessity by freedom in this situation. Freedom as freedom from all bonds and obligations would be absolute lawlessness, something that can neither be found nor seriously desired. Wherever there is will, there is likewise constraint. Real freedom would be freedom from the will not freedom of the will.” Ibid., p. 175:“However release from the realm of instinct does not mean that this new creature can act without cause or motive, that is, freely.” Ibid., p. 191:“Today morality by command evokes resistance because modern man, at least as a civilized member of the middle class, has grown accustomed to thinking of himself as making decisions on the basis of his own, freely operating insight. Therefore, all moral systems which deny that a sound basis for human behavior is found in man himself, and which undertake to propagate the view that human behavior can be effectively induced only by transcendental regulation, are actually lending support to immorality.”
These ideas are the result of a personal conversation with Prof. Markovic in 1967.
On this point see Teilhard de Chardin, Genèse d’une pensée. Lettres 1914–1919. (Paris:Bernard Grasset Editeur, 1961), p. 350 et passim. Also John P. Rock, S.J. “Divine Providence in St. Thomas Aquinas,” in The Quest for the Absolute. Edited by Frederick J. Adelmann, SJ. (Hague:M. Nijhoff, 1966), pp. 67-104.
Karl Marx, Alienated Labor, p. 99:“Eating, drinking and procreating are, of course, also genuine human functions. But abstractly considered, apart from the environment of other human activities, and turned into final and sole ends, they are animal functions.”
Adam Schaff, A Philosophy of Man, p. 134:“Our theory of happiness is a theory of the social conditions necessary for happiness. Whether under such con-ditions each and every individual will enjoy complete happiness depends on the individual. It is not possible to guarantee happiness to everyone — to serve it to them on a plate, so to speak; but it is possible to create suitable conditions for the happiness of all. Marxist socialism concentrates its attention on creating such conditions for happiness.”
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1968 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adelmann, F.J. (1968). Coexistence. In: From Dialogue to Epilogue Marxism and Catholicism Tomorrow. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9108-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9108-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8401-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9108-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive