I think the thing to remember here is that, at least in regard to the Social Doctrine of the Church, the emphasis has always been on principles, not on particular moral behaviors, with the obvious exceptions of intrinsically immoral acts, like abortion. As a result, people do have the freedom to work out for themselves how they believe those principles are best applied in their particular society .
I am sorry, but I actually can’t find anything to suggest this is remotely true. The Church has been a geo political force for most of its history and is still anything but low key in promoting moral values at both the personal and societal level.
Take the political arena. The idea of boiling down “church emphasis” to only “obvious exceptions of intrinsically immoral acts” - namely “abortion”, appears to be pretty much a conservative political invention here in the US. First, condense right to life down to one issue, say abortion. Next, condense that issue down further, say to a litmus test about lip service to changing secular law. Last, compromise on it anyway (ie, vote for an intrinsically evil position on it), but wring your hands and say you don’t have any choice…
To presume that this is a Church position is quite a stretch. For one thing, the Mother Church appears to directly reject it:
“In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
In the next paragraph, the document goes further:
“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…”
There are nine broad moral issues, including, BTW, developing a socially just economy. There is no doubt that these are non negotiable principles, the list is cited and partially reiterated in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, with the words “non negotiable” and in the context of fitness for communion.
The Church does not micromanage from Rome, but the local Bishpos, “authentic” teachers with the authority of Christ, are often much more specific. Further, the Holy Father has visited us and, low and behold, did not spend every breath talking about abortion, but addressed many issues - including directly pointing out some unjust disparities in our society. In response, he directly instructed us to be more diligent in voting our entire faith, not just a few select teachings. As noted above, the Church views that approach as “incoherent”.
The point is not that you are incorrect in noting that there can be honest disagreement on the means to the end,
on that point I absolutely agree. But, when the Church gives more specific direction, it is a serious matter for Catholics to disobey. Such disobedience should only be in response to the absolute moral certainty of one’s conscience, and the dissenter should make an ongoing good faith effort to bring him/herself back in communion with the church.
Also, there can be no honest disagreement without some acceptance of measurable fact and basic knowledge. For example, with no prior evidence, proposing that tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, people like me, will both pay for themselves and lower poverty by spurring growth, can be an honest disagreement. But if the theory is actually put into practice and the result is the measurable opposite, then the honesty of the debate wanes. At a certain point it becomes clear that the loyalty is to the tax cuts themselves, not the outcome or the common good.
But I think that utter selfishness and greed is not our human condition when working in a large group, in the “light” as St. Paul would say. In the light, and under the scrutiny of our peers, we generally aspire to be more like Christ. In many cases, public knowledge is the light. Lots of folks here would recite talking points about the evils of oversight and the wonders of the free market. Why not? They’ve heard it recited to them, unchallenged, for heaven knows how long.
But the reality is that no society can be valid in the eyes of God unless it recognizes certain inalienable rights of the human person (again, see the link above). So some balance is required. Even the most die hard free marketer will usually admit as much when confronted with cold reality - don’t believe me? Just ask one if letting Fannie May or Indy collapse was a valid option for society!
Again, there is room for legitimate disagreement on proper balance. But the disagreement is only honest, at least in the Catholic sense, with some foundation of factual knowledge. For example, if someone is reciting the mantra they heard about free markets on, say Fox News, without any real critical thought about, say, this:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/salmonella_lobbying;_ylt=AjtNoqe4Ui2iglctVuV9Ovus0NUE
They very well may not be meeting their Christian obligation to their fellow man. (I find it interesting that, as often is the case, the capitalists themselves, not just the common good would have been better served by a better balance in the example above).
Peace
