Reflection on authentic human progress

Fr. Henri de Lubac has published a most interesting book concerning the drama of atheistic humanism, in which he reviews the great atheistic currents of our time and shows how their humanistic aspirations lead to the dehumanization of men. And this is the exact truth. If there is anything that dehumanizes man it is his loss of God.

Those who have taken the path of atheism have aspired to the liberation of mankind. Nietzsche said: “God must die in order that man might live.” There is no point here in refuting the strange affirmation that links the progress of science to atheism: the fact is this progress did not begin in an atheistic epoch, nor was it initiated by atheists. The most favorable of atheistic explanations for the world is immediately rejected when one considers the tragic flaw in an atheistic world. In a world without God, and to the extent that the wise no longer possess God, what would be the point of man’s dominion over nature? I even dare to say that such a dominion would be turned into terrible slavery. Would the one who makes a discovery be its master and owner or its slave? Has the discovery of the atom introduced peace or fear into the world? Aren’t the scientists who made the discovery, terrified of their work?

This is not to say that discoveries must come to an end, or that they are evil in themselves but it does mean that if they are used without a subjection to superior principles, they will only serve to lead men to their ruin and to cast the weak beneath the feet of the strong. To the extent that science extends its conquests, man must dominate his own tendency to control. The greater the forces science places in the hands of man, the more urgent it is to give attention to the use he makes of it. Man needs what Bergson called: “a supplement for his soul”, a reality before which man may submit himself and in submitting, he thus acquires true dominion over creation. If this law is forgotten, scientific discovery turns against its author and far from liberating him, weighs him down in slavery, a burden even heavier because imposed in the name of science. Examples giving proof of the previous statement are numerous. All the conquests man has realized independently of his ultimate goal, cut off from the service of God, have turned against him. Economics, considered autonomous, which creates “economic man “, believes it can prescind from moral principles and, as a distinguished economist commented recently, he believes it possible to disregard the teachings of the Church (calling the encyclicals “the usual lamentations and repetitions on Marx’s commentaries”) and that all interruption of the economic process by moral concepts is extraneous and disturbing to it. What have we come to? To a kind of slavery if we take a long look at the terrible picture emerging from the so called advanced countries, more rich than moral: men who are slaves, children and women at the close of the last century working a 16 hour day, minimum wages, the sweatshop... And not so long ago, in our day, unemployment which in the United States reached seven million in 1930, millions likewise in France and England, and here in Chile, more jobless people than ever before in our history... The progress of economic man has brought its brave discoverers to tolerate and even to advise the burning of produce to maintain higher prices, thereby condemning many to hunger and death, the killing of pigs, the burning of wheat and corn and bounties for not planting. A fine domination of the economy in a world that disregards God!

The domination of science that gives man control over life and enables him to deprive millions of the right to found a home, to procreate a child because these would not be beautiful or strong… which means fundamentally relegating them to the category of animals. Were all of our ancestors beautiful and strong- yet here we are thanks to them. Does a beautiful body necessarily mean a beautiful soul? I can tell you that I have seen beautiful animals like proud peacocks, deprived of any human sense; and I have seen ugly and weak men who are treasures of goodness and self sacrifice.

The dominion of science over man is now oriented in the strangest direction: artificial fecundation (a strong type is worth more and has more right to be a parent; the elderly and the incurably ill have no right to life). Is this the service of man?… man as a person not as a simple individual, a mere number, but rather a person gifted with a spiritual soul free and immortal? Or does scientific progress mean the discovery that such attributes are no longer human and that we must now be content to be only the strongest animals in creation? Science rules over the elements that materialistic civilization has given us, but by any chance has this civilization meant the exaltation of man? Here we cite the profound work of Dr. Alexis Carrel that questions the supposed progress brought by this civilization. It is a fact that men have become more and more dehumanized in those immense modern cities that waste at least a month in a street car, where one feels more alone, more deeply sad and marginalised from one’s fellow men and where living space is reduced and one’s nervous equilibrium is affected.

There will be progress if all this is really put at the service of man, if it submits to moral principles, which is to say, if God is given back His place. In a world without God the human person is reduced to zero. How sad the world would be without God, how sad life without hope and comfort, how alone, how terribly alone we would feel.

What must we do? This is the great question we ask in face of the most formidable interrogation of history. What must we do? Write, speak, create journals, make movies, build stadiums, schools, universities and maintain them… This is good but not enough. Christianity was not born in this way. There is something more vital than all this, and without which the rest is worthless. We need witnesses.

On bidding farewell to his apostles Jesus confided the world to them and told them to be his witnesses. Today as well as yesterday the words of Bloy have much value: “The Church does not need activists or lobbyists, but witnesses; apostles not lecturers. This is not the time to prove that God exists. The hour has struck to give one’s life for Jesus Christ.”

The story of Christianity is the story of a long witnessing: in the first place, that of Christ. And the apostles imitate their teachers. They tell what they have seen and heard, and they know they have not only told the story but have lived it. They called their Teacher Beelzebub, they scourged him and put him to death… and they too were brought before the courts, rejoicing… Stephen, Peter, Paul, all of them… And together with this witnessing unto blood, the testimony of poverty: they brought their goods to the feet of the apostles (it was not an obligation but their love impelled them; economically the system was not a success but as a risk, it was); the witness of fraternity among rich and poor; the testimony of goodness: See how they love one another. How did the Roman Empire fall? It was not by the force of arms but by faith and love. By the cross of Peter and the sword of Paul, by Blandina, Sebastian, Lucy and Agnes… And when Rome fell, the barbarians came, the Pontiff sent missioners: Patrick, Boniface, and as much as they accomplished, even more was done by the monks of the west who, throughout their lives, gave an example of the faith which they professed. And this is the eternal story of the Church. Today people believe only the living testimony of the lives of others, the gentle testimony of love, the strong testimony of firm courage, the optimistic testimony of unwavering hope.