Quoting the then Cardinal Ratzinger

reynor

Ninety years have elapsed since Pope Leo XVIII issued the encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which has since become the “Magna Carta of Christian Social Work”, as Pius XI called it. This encyclical provides a Christian answer to the social question of the Marxist interpretation of mankind and of society. The struggle of the oppressed against their oppresors is for Marxism the whole content of history and the way to liberation, to the paradise of a classless world.

As a Christian, the Pope bases his argument on a radically different concept: “Precisely the opposite is true”, he replied to the idea of saving the world by means of a class struggle. “On the contrary, the Creator ordered all things toward peace and mutual harmony…Capital is oriented to work and work to capital.” To the aesthetic concept of a struggle, the Pope opposed solidarity as the Christian standard. Solidarity - that includes justice as its central demand. We are solidaristic only when we give to others what is rightfully theirs by reason of their creatureliness, their humanity.

For us, therefore, the foundation of all economic and social relationships is not confrontation but charity and cooperation. Confrontation is destruction. Violence solves no problems. Pope Leo says in this regard: “Constant struggle breeds barbarism and confusion. Today we can see the truth of this statement demonstrated all over the world.” Constant conflict barbarizes humanity, barbarizes the world. It destroys men interiorly, and this interior destruction leads, with incontestable logic, to exterior destruction. It follows, then, that the great social achievements, the gradual construction of a system of social justice, do not owe their existence to the program of Karl Marx, whose disciples wanted, not reform, but a progressive deterioration that would pave the way for their paradiese.

What are we to conclude from all this? To the concept of a class struggle and its inhumane utopias we are to oppose the fundamental principle of solidarity and justice. The decision as to what is right or not right is not to be made lightly. Respect for what is right is the basis of every human community. Without it, there is, in the long run, no respect for humanity itself and no preservation of human dignity. From: Zeitfragen und chrislicher Glaube, pp. 60-61

I can only agree.

archnemeziz

“On the contrary, the Creator ordered all things toward peace and mutual harmony…Capital is oriented to work and work to capital.” To the aesthetic concept of a struggle, the Pope opposed solidarity as the Christian standard. Solidarity - that includes justice as its central demand. We are solidaristic only when we give to others what is rightfully theirs by reason of their creatureliness, their humanity.

It is only through struggle that we can attain the necessary change the society needs in order to have a society based on justice. While it is right to give others what is rightfully theirs, the deeper social inequalities is being ignored. For the accumulation of capital through "equal opportunity" is a myth. In theory, we can be all equal with our access of capital. But in practice, not everyone has the ability to gain capital. The means of production that being owned by the proletariat, as Marx said, alienates the individual from his work and from that, his whole self and humanity. The sense of the self is gone, and hence, religion becomes the opium of the masses (as Marx has said as well). Because of this alienation, the proletariat with a false consciousness attribute the human qualities inachievable in a capitalist society to a concept of "God"; thus, alienating himself further.

I am sensing that in this quote, the current pope accepts inequality as "natural". Very Calvinist in its nature or in Weberian terms, he adopts the "Protestant ethic". That puts his "Catholic values" in question.

For us, therefore, the foundation of all economic and social relationships is not confrontation but charity and cooperation.

While I do not condemn charity, I question the raison d'etre of charity in itself. Charity tends to individualise social inequalities. Further, instead of addressing the larger social problems of inequality, charity tends to provide only a band-aid solution to structural inequalities. Charity does not tap into the roots that causes poverty in the first place. Charity sometimes does not historicize nor politicize the problem. Rather, charity tends to emphasize an unequal relationship between the "philantrophist" and the "receiver". What do I mean by this? Philantrophists are often rich people. By handing out money in the form of charity to the poor, the rich acknowledges their conditions, but they want to maintain this relationship rather than alleviating these poor people from poverty. The act of charity itself reflects power dynamics. The rich (having more social, political and economic capital) gives handouts to the poor (being socially, politically and economically deprived of capital).

Constant conflict barbarizes humanity, barbarizes the world. It destroys men interiorly, and this interior destruction leads, with incontestable logic, to exterior destruction.

I disagree. Conflict itself opened the eyes of the people by changing their histories. The French Revolution for example, ended the absolute powers of the monarch and the privileges that the aritocracy and the Catholic clergy had. Without the French Revolution, democracy as we know it today wouldn't exist. We cannot discount the struggles fought by the disadvantaged populations to gain their political, economic and social rights. We cannot discount the struggle of women to fight for their rights, we cannot discount the struggle of African-Americans to end racial discrimination in the US, we cannot discount the struggles of Nelson Mandela in ending the apartheid in South Africa. Conflict is a class struggle. It is about gaining rights that are being denied from you for being a member of a disadvantaged group.

To the concept of a class struggle and its inhumane utopias we are to oppose the fundamental principle of solidarity and justice. The decision as to what is right or not right is not to be made lightly. Respect for what is right is the basis of every human community. Without it, there is, in the long run, no respect for humanity itself and no preservation of human dignity.

Again, I must disagree. "Class struggles" do not have "inhumane utopias". The fundamental principle of "solidarity" is based on brotherhood (fraternite) which is even fundamental within Christian ethics. The concept of brotherhood means that everyone is seen and treated as equals. Class, race, ethnicity, culture, language, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. are disregarded. Brotherhood is about treating your fellow human as a human, regardless of his/her economic, social or political conditions. "Justice" as understood by most Marxists and neo-Marxists is ditributive justice. This is about the common ownership of the means of production while providing health care, education, housing to each and everyone. The fundamental ethic of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Justice in this sense is to provide fundamental dignity--giving the person his/her dignity to live as a human, again, regardless of his/her social, economic or political conditions.

Respecting what is right? Who defines what is 'right'? If this 'right' does not provide equality, justice and dignity to the individual and to a group of people, then that 'right' is fundamentally problematic. To respect what is right--granting equality, justice and dignity to the person and groups of persons--is the 'right' principle that needs to be preserved. Preserving what is 'right'--based on inequalities and injustices--is fundamentally wrong in its very nature.

reynor

archnemeziz wrote: »

It is only through struggle that we can attain the necessary change the society needs in order to have a society based on justice. While it is right to give others what is rightfully theirs, the deeper social inequalities is being ignored. For the accumulation of capital through "equal opportunity" is a myth. In theory, we can be all equal with our access of capital. But in practice, not everyone has the ability to gain capital. The means of production that being owned by the proletariat, as Marx said, alienates the individual from his work and from that, his whole self and humanity. The sense of the self is gone, and hence, religion becomes the opium of the masses (as Marx has said as well). Because of this alienation, the proletariat with a false consciousness attribute the human qualities inachievable in a capitalist society to a concept of "God"; thus, alienating himself further.

I am sensing that in this quote, the current pope accepts inequality as "natural". Very Calvinist in its nature or in Weberian terms, he adopts the "Protestant ethic". That puts his "Catholic values" in question.

I am not sure where you are going at this. Inequality here is in the context of understanding that we are created by God different from each other, that every person is an idea of God unique in all and every way. Failure to recognize this uniqueness does not solve the problem of equality in the economical terms but moreso blurrs the identity of each person which not only set aside what each individual can contribute and offer the group but, most of all, takes away the freedom of each person to improve himself and if that cannot be permitted then such would also lead the way to a society of which progress would have no place in the future.

archnemeziz wrote: »

While I do not condemn charity, I question the raison d'etre of charity in itself. Charity tends to individualise social inequalities. Further, instead of addressing the larger social problems of inequality, charity tends to provide only a band-aid solution to structural inequalities. Charity does not tap into the roots that causes poverty in the first place. Charity sometimes does not historicize nor politicize the problem. Rather, charity tends to emphasize an unequal relationship between the "philantrophist" and the "receiver". What do I mean by this? Philantrophists are often rich people. By handing out money in the form of charity to the poor, the rich acknowledges their conditions, but they want to maintain this relationship rather than alleviating these poor people from poverty. The act of charity itself reflects power dynamics. The rich (having more social, political and economic capital) gives handouts to the poor (being socially, politically and economically deprived of capital).

The charity here refers more on the true meaning of the word which is love and not solely "charity" in the philantrophic sense. Even in the context of philantrophy, a true charity calls for a prudential judgment on every act. If your donation, with your full awareness, will not have a favorable result, then the act of giving does not really stem from charity at all but from laziness, not wanting to extend any further effort to help the individual. It is an act that is borne out of the desire to just do the deed and gain the merits of the act, rather than the genuine desire to help, which is always born out of genuine charity towards the individual.

archnemeziz wrote: »

I disagree. Conflict itself opened the eyes of the people by changing their histories. The French Revolution for example, ended the absolute powers of the monarch and the privileges that the aritocracy and the Catholic clergy had. Without the French Revolution, democracy as we know it today wouldn't exist. We cannot discount the struggles fought by the disadvantaged populations to gain their political, economic and social rights. We cannot discount the struggle of women to fight for their rights, we cannot discount the struggle of African-Americans to end racial discrimination in the US, we cannot discount the struggles of Nelson Mandela in ending the apartheid in South Africa. Conflict is a class struggle. It is about gaining rights that are being denied from you for being a member of a disadvantaged group.

Yes, indeed it open the eyes of many people but at the expense of many human lives. Something that could have been prevented had we chosen by way of charity and cooperation instead of a violent confrontation.

archnemeziz wrote: »

Preserving what is 'right'--based on inequalities and injustices--is fundamentally
wrong in its very nature.

There is no such thing as a right based on inequalities and injustices.


If only you would read further with an open mind and in the right context, you will find that the core of your statement agrees with the Pope. Thank you for taking time to comment. May God bless you always.