One would not think that a church group reading Pope Leo's 1890 encyclical on social justice could be exciting - I sure didn't expect it - but it has been. Last Wednesday we excitedly discussed ideas that are 130 years old, from an old pope no less, because they are as relevant now as then - and still controversial. At the time, Leo was responding to a growing call for socialism, as set up in Spain (then called "syndicalism"), which was responding to the growing power of Marx's theories first published in the 1840's, nearly 50 years earlier. The field into which he was delving was (and still is) filled with land mines: how to address the disparity between rich and poor? What was the family's role and that of the state? What was religion's role in all of this? What, in fact, was the RIGHT way?
It is a complex discussion, but I will try to sum it up briefly in a pyramidal structure: Socially, the family is the physical base of all society. Above it, but of lesser importance, is (or should be) the state, which in no way should interfere with the fundamentals of the base, the proper family. Beneath the family lies the unseen foundation in the pyramid, laws of behavior for the family that come from religion, which in turn come from God. Obviously, the state should also do nothing to compromise, or to replace, the unseen base of the family as well. To do so would lead, eventually, to a man-made society which would become as debased as all things of man that are not informed by a higher power.
As the laws of religion come from God, they have one overall purpose (from the Catholic perspective): to get one back to God. Anything that leads away from this hurts the family and thus society and the state, just as any state that hampers the laws of God, and their proper function in the family, hurts both, and thus itself.
If this diagram is accepted - and it certainly was not by the Marxists both then and now - then the rights and obligations of every human and every human-made institution becomes much clearer.
For example, what is the proper behavior of the rich towards the poor? And how should the state become involved (if at all)?
Says Leo of this division in society: God does not care a wit about your economic status (or, I might add, of how fashionable or popular you are, how good looking, how smart, and so on). It is rather how you behave with what you have that is important, the end-goal being union with God. Thus the rich should share what is above their needs - including the greater needs of his station in life - because charity and turning from things "of the flesh" is part of the spiritual foundation of the Catholic religion (and most others). The rich are obliged to give; and as they have much more to give, so it is that much more of a challenge. Just as the poor(er) have their own obvious difficulties, so do the rich, for they must fight their own greed and desire for social elevation. With them, the fight is much harder. We might even call wealth, then, a burden.
And, following this logic, it is a burden that the State should not interfere with, for various reasons. For one, sharing is the cross the rich must bear, and it is this action which is often the greatest salvation of their souls. Further, though, is the effect state interference would have on the functioning of society and the family. Man, says Leo, is meant to enjoy and share the fruits of his labor. If that privilege is denied him, so will be the reason for his efforts. In the end, then, all society suffers, for overall production and thus well-being will decrease. Further still, with mandatory redistribution, the State then takes on the role of Head of Family. Here, the pyramid is reversed: the State sustains, and thus comes to have power over the family; and with this, it is no longer informed by the Holy Spirit that arises through the natural affections of the family.
All this was surprisingly relevant to us at the meeting, in which all were strongly in favor of helping those in need. In the end, though, its logic is based on one great cornerstone: that the role of life is union with God. Once that is removed - as Marx well knew, and as did his functional successors in Russia and Cuba and elsewhere - control by the State - that is, control by what is above on the pyramid - becomes possible, and perhaps necessary. But can it work? Can it function without the clarity of the spiritual masters who have informed religions? Or will it always, sooner or later, fall in with the trappings of ego of all things human?
Our lives depend on belief in the end, which is a reminder of how powerful a single belief - or lack of it - can be in shaping nearly everything important to humans in this world. FK
It is a complex discussion, but I will try to sum it up briefly in a pyramidal structure: Socially, the family is the physical base of all society. Above it, but of lesser importance, is (or should be) the state, which in no way should interfere with the fundamentals of the base, the proper family. Beneath the family lies the unseen foundation in the pyramid, laws of behavior for the family that come from religion, which in turn come from God. Obviously, the state should also do nothing to compromise, or to replace, the unseen base of the family as well. To do so would lead, eventually, to a man-made society which would become as debased as all things of man that are not informed by a higher power.
As the laws of religion come from God, they have one overall purpose (from the Catholic perspective): to get one back to God. Anything that leads away from this hurts the family and thus society and the state, just as any state that hampers the laws of God, and their proper function in the family, hurts both, and thus itself.
If this diagram is accepted - and it certainly was not by the Marxists both then and now - then the rights and obligations of every human and every human-made institution becomes much clearer.
For example, what is the proper behavior of the rich towards the poor? And how should the state become involved (if at all)?
Says Leo of this division in society: God does not care a wit about your economic status (or, I might add, of how fashionable or popular you are, how good looking, how smart, and so on). It is rather how you behave with what you have that is important, the end-goal being union with God. Thus the rich should share what is above their needs - including the greater needs of his station in life - because charity and turning from things "of the flesh" is part of the spiritual foundation of the Catholic religion (and most others). The rich are obliged to give; and as they have much more to give, so it is that much more of a challenge. Just as the poor(er) have their own obvious difficulties, so do the rich, for they must fight their own greed and desire for social elevation. With them, the fight is much harder. We might even call wealth, then, a burden.
And, following this logic, it is a burden that the State should not interfere with, for various reasons. For one, sharing is the cross the rich must bear, and it is this action which is often the greatest salvation of their souls. Further, though, is the effect state interference would have on the functioning of society and the family. Man, says Leo, is meant to enjoy and share the fruits of his labor. If that privilege is denied him, so will be the reason for his efforts. In the end, then, all society suffers, for overall production and thus well-being will decrease. Further still, with mandatory redistribution, the State then takes on the role of Head of Family. Here, the pyramid is reversed: the State sustains, and thus comes to have power over the family; and with this, it is no longer informed by the Holy Spirit that arises through the natural affections of the family.
All this was surprisingly relevant to us at the meeting, in which all were strongly in favor of helping those in need. In the end, though, its logic is based on one great cornerstone: that the role of life is union with God. Once that is removed - as Marx well knew, and as did his functional successors in Russia and Cuba and elsewhere - control by the State - that is, control by what is above on the pyramid - becomes possible, and perhaps necessary. But can it work? Can it function without the clarity of the spiritual masters who have informed religions? Or will it always, sooner or later, fall in with the trappings of ego of all things human?
Our lives depend on belief in the end, which is a reminder of how powerful a single belief - or lack of it - can be in shaping nearly everything important to humans in this world. FK
RSS Feed