This Should Come As No Surprise
In a rather inappropriate title, Vatican thumbs up for Karl Marx after Galileo, Darwin and Oscar Wilde, the Times Online is discussing a new article coming from L’Osservatore Romano:
Karl Marx, who famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, has joined Galileo, Charles Darwin and Oscar Wilde on a growing list of historical figures to have undergone an unlikely reappraisal by the Roman Catholic Church.
L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said yesterday that Marx’s early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the “social alienation” felt by the “large part of humanity” that remained excluded, even now, from economic and political decision-making.
Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, wrote in an article that Marx’s work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking “a new harmony” between its needs and the natural environment. He also said that Marx’s theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.
Just because Karl Marx is worth studying, and some of his analysis has proven valid (even capitalists follow it), does not mean one accepts the whole structure of his thought. The point, of course, is that Catholics can and do learn from others, even those hostile to them (as Marx was). St. Augustine found the Platonists worth studying. St Thomas Aquinas found Arab philosophers worth studying. Pope Benedict has himself pointed out some of the value in Marx before pointing out Marx’s erroneous conclusions.
Catholics have a legacy of learning from others, integrating their insights when possible to our faith. This does not mean wholesale acceptance of what others have said, but it does mean appreciating what they got right even if they are often wrong.
Comments are closed.
It might also mean that on occassion is it valuable to hear from such people directly rather than reading a book. And even on some occassions, facilitate hearing from them such as asking them to speak at a Catholic university or institution!
True, Kurt, though a line of distinction needs to be drawn between a facilitated hearing and an honor bestowed upon that individual.
Hear, hear Kurt!
As far as Marx goes, it is assumed that he was nothing more than a propagandist by many people, when in reality he was a legitimate social scientist. He didn’t craft his plan from nothing, as it were, but he grounded it in his observations and research. One may not agree with his conclusions, but his work, and that of Engels, is beyond valuable.
That Catholics should think Marx is “relevant” should come as no surprise to anyone who has read Laborem Exercens.
Absolutely, Iafrate. As I recall, the whole phenomenology of work developed in that encyclical is taken rather straightforwardly from Marx’s early work on the realization of human “species-being” as being dependent on self-realization realized through labor.
Like Marx, the Church has always recognized the priority of labor over capital.
Incidentally, Alasdair MaIntyre has a few (typically) amazing essays on the relation of Marx to Aristotelian-Thomist forms of social practice. “Marxism and Christianty: 19??, 19??, 1995″ and “Theses on Feuerbach: Roads not Taken” are especially relevant.
Great catch, Henry.
Ursus,
What you say is elementary. But then, it may still happen that someone with whom you disagree may well be honored. What then?
I like Mark Shea’s rule of thumb: always subtract 20 IQ points whenever the media writes about religion, and 50 when it’s specifically about the Catholic Church.
Catholics have a legacy of learning from others, integrating their insights when possible to our faith.
What do all of these people have in common?
St. Maria Faustina Kowalska, Francis Bacon, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean Paul Sartre, Jeremy Bentham, Daniel Defoe, Alexandre Dumas, Graham Greene, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Johannes Kepler, John Locke, Maimonides, John Stuart Mill, John Milton, George Sand, Jonathan Swift, Descartes, Pascal , Montesquieu, Voltaire , Stendhal, Victor Hugo, Gustave Flaubert, Alexandre Dumas
Some or all of their written works were on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, begun in 1529 and not abandoned until 1966. All of Sartre’s works were condemned in 1948, and Pope John XXIII (of all people) put the works of Maria Faustina Kowalska on the Index in 1959. (She was canonized on April 30, 2000.)
So Catholics may have a “legacy” of learning from others, but in the case of many of those others, the legacy doesn’t go back very far! Interestingly, the works of Marx were never on the Index.
Micky, I’ve found that the more I know about a subject, the more IQ points I subtract from media coverage about it. At some point, you’ve got to consider the possibility that they’re just dumb. :)
Mickey,
I was involved in a strike by a small union many years ago that got fairly major news coverage (New York Times, Time Magazine), and I found the coverage to be describing events rather similar, but certainly not identical, to what I knew to be the case. I think it’s not about how smart journalists are. I think it’s that by the very nature of their jobs, they are not participants in the events they report on, and they generally have a very limited time to gather information and write a story.
Probably papers like the Times of London or New York cover Catholicism just as well as they cover chemistry or physics or the treatment of cancer. They do it very well for daily newspapers, but if you are a chemist, a physicist, or an oncologist, you subscribe to specialized journals and don’t expect too much from the newspapers.
Gerald,
The answer depends on what is disagreed about, who is doing the honoring and what their relationship is to me.
Ursus,
You are certainly correct this matter is one of discernment and not dogma.
One of these days, I should get around to reading Marx.
But then, it may still happen that someone with whom you disagree may well be honored.
It’s not a question of disagreement with individuals. It is a question of fundamental disagreement with the Catholic Church on an important issue of faith and morals. Certainly every voice should be heard. But not every voice should be elevated and enshrined.
BTW, anyone going to this year’s NJ Right-to-Life Banquet? They are honoring Glenn Beck! Should be a sell-out.
Ursus,
I agree. It is a matter of prudential judgment. I was merely trying to emphasize that point.
Mark,
No matter who is involved, the decision to elevate a voice, or even to honor it, is a matter of prudential judgment.