7. Kristne kirker og den moderne verden
1500-tallet var ikke kun præget af reformationerne, men oplevede desuden begyndelsen på en videnskabelig og intellektuel revolution, der førte til, at der blev stillet spørgsmål ved kirkens rolle og dens værdier. Ved udgangen af 1700-tallet måtte kirken indse, at den stod over for en voksende sekularisering samt etableringen af nye politiske modeller, som ikke længere var baseret på kristendommen. Et århundrede senere medførte industrialiseringens voldsomme omvæltninger, at den romersk-katolske kirke så sig nødsaget til at forholde sig til det ”sociale spørgsmål” (dvs. udnyttelsen af menneskelig arbejdskraft)..
Syllabus errorum – Fortegnelse over vranglærer
Syllabus complectens praecipuos nostrae aetatis errores (”Fortegnelse omfattende de vigtigste fejl i vor tid”), også kendt blot som Syllabus, er en liste over fejlagtige påstande samlet af Pave Pius 9. (1846-1878). Hver påstand ledsages af henvisninger til teksten, som uddyber grunden til disse fordømmelser. Denne korte tekst er et tillæg til encyklikaen Quanta cura (”Allerstørste omhu”; 8. december 1864), som uddyber fordømmelsen af samtidens politiske og filosofiske ”vranglærer”.
"I. Pantheism, naturalism and absolute rationalism
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations […].
II. Moderate rationalism
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself […].
IV. Socialism, communism, secret societies, biblical societies, clerico-liberal societies
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical Qui pluribus (Nov. 9, 1846), Allocution Quibus quantisque (April 20, 1849), Encyclical Noscitis et nobiscum (Dec. 8, 1849), Allocution Singulari quadam (Dec. 9, 1854), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur (Aug. 10, 1863).
V. Errors concerning the church and her rights
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government […].
VI. Errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the church
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers […].
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church […].
X. Errors having reference to modern liberalism
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Syllabus of Errors. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM
Rerum novarum – Kapitalens og arbejdets rettigheder og pligter
Encyklikaen Rerum novarum (”Nye ting”) blev udsendt af Pave Leo 13. (1878-1903) den 15. maj 1891. Den bærer undertitlen ”Om kapitalens og arbejdets rettigheder og pligter” og formulerer kirkens sociale doktrin såvel som dens svar på de økonomiske og sociale omvæltninger, som industrialiseringen forårsagede. Med kraftig inspiration fra ”sociale kristnes” aktiviteter fordømmer skrivelsen arbejdernes fattigdom og kapitalismens udskejelser, men også den ”ateistiske socialisme”. Den ansporer kristen fagforeningsdannelse og social bevidst kristendom og fremsætter idéen om harmoni mellem de forskellige sociale klasser.
“The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy […].
To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
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 […].
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity […].
20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman […].
Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven.”
Rerum novarum.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-
Adskillelsen af Kirke og Stat
Denne karikatur, udgivet under den debat, der førte til adskillelsen af religion og stat (loven af 9. december 1905 – som altså er specifik fransk!), fremstiller den franske politiker Jean-Baptiste Bienvenu Martin i færd med at adskille stat og kirke. Den opsummerer ret præcist spørgsmålets kerne. Tilstedeværelsen af en præst symboliserer den romersk-katolske kirke som sådan, hvilket viser, at størstedelen af vanskelighederne stammer fra en romersk-katolsk kirke, der tillægger konkordatet i 1801 (en aftale mellem Napoleon Bonaparte og paven, som regulerede den franske kirkes forhold til Vatikanet) meget stor vigtighed. Den mand, som foretager adskillelsen, er minister for både uddannelse og kirke; denne dobbelte funktion er en påmindelse om, at spørgsmålet om sekularisering i Frankrig først og fremmest opstår i skolesystemet.
Karikatur fra Le rire, 20. maj 1905.
Hentet fra:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Rire_-_Séparation_de_l’Église_et_de_l’Etat.jpg