Is Catholic Social Teaching Inherently Liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From Catholic Culture:
In a speech that he delivered in Washington last month, drawing kudos from many liberal Catholic analysts, Father John Langan of Georgetown argued that American Church leaders should engage the Obama White House on a broad range of issues, rather than allowing their relationship to deteriorate solely because of a disagreement on abortion.

The problem isn’t only abortion, of course; the Obama administration is pursuing policies inimical to the culture of life on several different fronts. And the notion that the American Catholic hierarchy has been hostile toward the Democratic Party leadership will quickly be recognized as laughable by anyone who is acquainted with American bishops. But these are old arguments, which have been thoroughly explored elsewhere-- not my topic for today. From among all the familiar themes raised by Father Langan’s talk, one sentence leapt out at me:

There seems to be a fairly strong prima facie case for Catholics to support the Obama administration and its agenda as an effort to move American society somewhat closer to the ideals of Catholic social thought and to move our society forward from the pit which it has dug for itself.

Notice, now, that our Jesuit mentor is not merely saying that it is possible to make a Catholic case for Obama’s policies. He is claiming a “prima facie” case-- a case so obvious that it almost doesn’t need to mentioned; an argument so strong that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees.​

This was a 2009 commentary by Phil Lawler that was earlier discussed in this thread. I would have resurrected the thread, but I wouldn’t want our inestimable Matilda to shut it down. So, in accordance with her typical instructions, I’m starting a new thread on the subject.

I, myself, see a strong federalist trend in Catholic Social Teaching. While nobody is denying that society must do a considerable amount to help those less fortunate, I see little or no evidence of support in actual Magisterial documents for massive statism and statist solutions.

Pius XI called it “grave evil”:
  1. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
Quadragesimo Anno​

John XXIII said that no Catholic could support it:
  1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.
Mater et Magistra​

John Paul II said that it came from a inadequate understanding of the role of the State:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

Centesimus Annus, 48​

Benedict XVI called it paternalist and stated that it demeans those it is supposed to help:
  1. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.
Caritas in Veritate​

So why is it, then, that so many (presumably) well-meaning Catholics, including, sadly, some in the presbyteriate and even some in the episcopate, are such staunch supporters of Statist solutions to social ills?

With so many writings that are clearly within the Church’s patrimony, how could it be that they could have missed it?

Your thoughts?
 
markomalley said:
…

So why is it, then, that so many (presumably) well-meaning Catholics, including, sadly, some in the presbyteriate and even some in the episcopate, are such staunch supporters of Statist solutions to social ills?

With so many writings that are clearly within the Church’s patrimony, how could it be that they could have missed it?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are well-intentioned, I’d say it would be a number of things, among them being ill-informed, not forming their consciences, a preference for government to solve social problems, and a dislike for conservativism. 🤷
 
I think Catholic social teaching is inherently Catholic. I see a strong Catholic trend whenever I read about it. 😉
 
markomalley said:
…snip…

So why is it, then, that so many (presumably) well-meaning Catholics, including, sadly, some in the presbyteriate and even some in the episcopate, are such staunch supporters of Statist solutions to social ills?

With so many writings that are clearly within the Church’s patrimony, how could it be that they could have missed it?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
For many decades, the party more associated with what we call liberalism today actually did a lot of good and helped a lot of people. In fact, some of what they advocated came directly from Catholic social teaching: unemployment & workers’ comp, etc. {ETA: Things were actually terrible for workers in those days.}

As time went by, things changed. Unions, instead of being defenders of poor beleaguered workers, became more greedy for both money and power. The Great Causes of earlier times were resolved but liberals did not accept that and cast about for new causes.

The causes they found were inimical to Catholic thinking, but a lot of Catholics, who had been raised to believe that without the liberals, the business-oriented conservatives would put us all back into the days of the Industrial Revolution, could not bring themselves to leave “their party.”

At the same time, the cardinal most influential in the US, Card. Bernardin, seriously supported liberalism. As a result, Catholics did not immediately see the ramifications of what was happening and did not respond strongly. There was a lot of bad stuff going on in the 60s through to the mid-70s, way to much to go into.

Many were influenced by heretical modernist ideas taught by some Catholics as well, so one can see a sort of flow back and forth between the Catholic hierarchy and the liberals, who at that time were shifting from being New Deal-types to the radicalism of some of the counter-cultural groups.

And so, like those infamous slowly boiled frogs, we now have a situation in which some Catholics are willing to accept that “helping the poor” and legalized abortion for hand-in-hand…

It’s a mess, that’s for sure.
 
From what I understand about Catholic Social Teaching is that government should be for helping people. The laws should be truly life-giving.

If you see that as liberal, then ok.
 
What? No. It’s Catholic. Classical Liberalism, Welfare state liberalism, socialism, etc. have all been condemned. Catholic social teaching calls for the third sector (churches, unions, etc.) to help people, along with individuals, not the government unless there is no other way to support people. It is communitarian but respects subsidiarity. Too many people forget about subsidiarity and only think about solidarity and social justice.
 
I think the question raised in the thread title and orignal post to be very pertinent in today’s society. A full understanding of the social teachings of the Church would have gone a long ways in solving many of the problems we see today in the US and Europe.

Bear with me a moment, while I make a couple of analogies that will hopefully make sense at the end of this post. One of the many things that is wonderful about the “Catholic mindset” is how balanced it is. Having grown up in the bible-belt, a very good example is the attitude towards alcohol. So many of the protestants around us had the opinion that all consumption was wrong. The Church, of course did not, yet condemned most strongly the sinfulness of drunkedness. It is the same way with sex. The Church never (despite what some say on this forum) adopted a puritancial attitude towards sex. As GK Chesterton once said (I paraphrase), “the Church teaches us to love sex, and to hate lust”. Now, with both of these two examples, we see that people outside of the church have often adopted an extreme view one direction or the other, in order “solve” problems perceived in society. Too much drunkedness, lets adopt prohibition. And it leads to disaster.

Well, it is the same with Catholic social teachings, it is so well balanced. There are two underlying principles, subsidiarity and solidarity. Both of these are of exteme importance. Well, people who act as if Catholic social teachings are inherently liberal do so out of the focus on solidarity only. They have no balance.

There has been a complete abandonment of the principle of subsidiairty in today’s society and with government structures. The EU is a glaring example. The idea of a common currence across countries that have no mobility of labor is absurd. Side note: when economic imbalances occur between states that have free trade between them, there are only two fundamental ways of balancing things out: 1) mobility of labor or 2) changes in relative valuation of currency.

Here in this country, the tax structure shows how far off we have gone. Regardless of what one thinks of the proper role of government involvement in society (from liberal to conservaive), if the principle of subsidiarity exists, the overall taxes collected should be greatest at the local and the state level, with the federal government coming in a distance third. This should be the result in a heavily “welfare” oritineted government, or the result of a very conservative approach to government action. Look at something we all agree is a function of the state: roads. For some reason, we send our taxes to Washington and expect the feds to send money back to the states and local governments for the roads. And that seems just normal to all of us. But it is a glaring example of how subsidiarity has been lost in our thinking.

Unfortunately, this idea has been lost on many in the Church also (witness the Vatican paper from a few months ago advocating global financial regulations).

So at the end of the day, if one forgets all about subsidiarity (and I submit that we all have done that, even conservatives) and focuses only on solidarity, the results will be an inherently liberal approach to government.

I will even take the view (likely to be criticized by conservatives), that they have the same fault. All conservatives want to do is focus on the solidarity end of things (ie fix problems by removing government functions, which is fixing the sympton not the problem), as opposed to focusing on restoring a balance between the two. Let me give you an example: why would any conservative, at this point in time, on the national stage, attack the Massachusetts health care plan implemented under Govenor Romney? It is absurd. If the folks in Massachusetts want that type of system, great, more power to them. It was done at the state level. The problem with Obamacare is doing it at the federal level. This argument was rarely made, and when it was made was never the key point.

As so many parts of Church teaching, if we do not appreciate the balanced and natural approach to it, if we gravitate to one side of the other; everything will become corrupted. That is what has happened.
 
I think proponents for Social Justice, believe in Statism for several reasons.
  • Conservatism is based on individualism, so it’s difficult to see the good in it. The Conservative policy is a tax deduction for Charitable contributions, a man donates $1 million dollars to some charity that feeds the hungry…but was this do to Conservative policy…or just a charitable man? Liberal policy, you could spend $10 million to feed the same amount of people the man fed, but it’s easier to point out the success of the Liberal policy because it’s centralized.
  • Liberals demonize Conservatism as heartless and unforgiving and Conservatives do a lousy job defending themselves (though they are getting better)
  • Many Socialists (including Fascists) have hijacked the term Social Justice and hence propagate statist ideals to Social Justice
  • People are naturally guilty of their selfishness and are weak. It’s much easier to have a government coerce you into giving, as opposed to doing it on your own.
  • Social Justice can lead people to ideals of Utopianism, as where they seek to create a perfect world in an imperfect universe. Therefore in order to create a perfect world, everyone must be on board and Free Will must be restrained.
 
This is a really good start to a discussion and I hope it flows into something very enriching.

Where we are is past the political bifurcation between the party that is against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia, and the party that wants to institute health insurance for all, increase funding for welfare programs of various types, and lessen the penalties for illegal immigration. Catholics have common ground with both parties, and common reason to demand better from both parties.

Actually, if you’re not demanding better from your own elected representatives, you need to put down the Xbox and start writing some letters. But proceeding …

The OP’s thread on statism is very well-taken and rather than respond to each point individually I want to let it stand as a whole. That said, we do have to take in mind that the quotes are in context of Communism versus a Democratic Republic, which is the difference between a system that imposes all views from the top down versus one in which there is limited government that is supposed to be representative and responsive to the people, at least at an electoral level. A system may be highly centralized or highly decentralized, the moral gauge is to what extent the government interferes with the individual lives of citizens, in other words how much religious freedom is granted. In the case of Communism, the Church remembers (though many here may not) a time when priests were considered enemies of the proletariat and executed en masse by the State, and a pervasive atheist ideology ran all sectors of life. In that regard, Communism and Fascism are highly similar.

A friend of mine, who is Russian Orthodox, tells me that there’s a monastery outside of St. Petersburg next to a river. When the river runs low, sometimes the body of a priest or monk who was drowned during the Bolshevik Revolution rises to the surface and has to be hurriedly buried in the monastery cemetary.

So where are we now with respect to Catholic social teaching? I would argue that we are neither liberal nor conservative, with respect to the present party platforms (which may change much come November), but retain our own identity and have done so unchangingly for millenia. If we appear to have “new” rules it is because the world has changed and our principles must be applied to new challenges.

Our principles are easy to deduce: as man relates to government, freedom of conscience is paramount, and freedom of religion easily flows thus.

Life is also paramount, and the taking of innocent life is the most heinous act a government can do. Here we see abortion, which in an English system of law is not something that government does but rather that government allows individuals to do. If abortion must remain legal it still remains reprehensible, and if the government holds to a policy of keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare” it is our obligation to hold their feet to the fire over the “rare” part. Meanwhile, we work to end those causes of abortion as much as possible, which may not be a government obligation though it is certainly a challenge we must take up in our own lives and in the lives of those around us.

Relatedly, the case of taking up violence against evil must never be decided lightly. Here we find doctrines on Just War and the death penalty.

As man relates to the powerful, the small and vulnerable must be protected, and government is responsible for instituting fair courts, ensuring that people are treated justly and that basic human dignity is respected at all times. Equitable financial systems are demanded, and so we Catholic teaching reflected in some parts of the CARD Act (though the act fell short of expectations). Workers deserve their fair wages, businesses deserve the opportunity to sell their products, no one should have their property seized without compelling reason. From here we see the teaching that supports Unions (which as St Francis pointed out, did a vast amount of good), and the same teaching decries the cronyism and violence that we so often see in Unions while exhorting those same Unions to continue to seek fair wages and prevent the wealthy from taking advantage of them.

Basic access to food, water, education, employment and health care all flow from respecting the dignity of persons, who are created in Imago Dei. In the US, food and water are less of an issue than in other countries, though if bottlers keep buying up water rights we may see it very well become an issue. Education is a constant struggle because, on the one hand, the government provides a LOT of education, on the other the education is insufficient. So we can applaud the money spent but demand accountability for decreasing standards. Employment is a tricky one - no one is guaranteed a job but none should be denied unjustly - so we oppose discrimination but don’t necessarily support affirmative action. And health care is likewise difficult. No one should be turned away from a doctor because of cost, nor should someone be compelled to pay for an abortion.

So we as Church are our own social teaching and neither party adequately and completely addresses our concerns.
 
austenbosten said:
… - People are naturally guilty of their selfishness and are weak. It’s much easier to have a government coerce you into giving, as opposed to doing it on your own. …
Click to expand...
“Liberals never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money – only for wanting to keep your own money.” – columnist Joe Sobran
 
losh14 said:
A friend of mine, who is Russian Orthodox, tells me that there’s a monastery outside of St. Petersburg next to a river. When the river runs low, sometimes the body of a priest or monk who was drowned during the Bolshevik Revolution rises to the surface and has to be hurriedly buried in the monastery cemetery.
Click to expand...
i have to question this,bodies will rise no matter the depth of the water.any bodies from 100 years ago would be long ago have been found in the river,this has nothing to do with the gist of the thread i know.but i couldn’t let this go.if i’m wrong about this ,🤷
 
austenbosten said:
  • People are naturally guilty of their selfishness and are weak. It’s much easier to have a government coerce you into giving, as opposed to doing it on your own.
    .
Click to expand...
This is what I always wonder about.

If the Church laity was more giving and caring on their own as opposed to being forced by govt., wouldn’t it be a better sign of Christ’s love. Wouldn’t the people who are helped have a better understanding of Christian love instead of some feeling entitled to help from the govt.

Wouldn’t we who give out of love rather than forced by the govt receive more grace from God for our giving.

Already some charitable orgs. that take some money from the govt. to help cover costs are being told that if they take govt. money they can’t also preach the gospel or even pray with the ones who come for help. Isn’t one of the reasons we help people in times of need is to also help with their spiritual needs. How can the govt. do this?
 
10gr8kids said:
This is what I always wonder about.

If the Church laity was more giving and caring on their own as opposed to being forced by govt., wouldn’t it be a better sign of Christ’s love. Wouldn’t the people who are helped have a better understanding of Christian love instead of some feeling entitled to help from the govt.

Wouldn’t we who give out of love rather than forced by the govt receive more grace from God for our giving.

Already some charitable orgs. that take some money from the govt. to help cover costs are being told that if they take govt. money they can’t also preach the gospel or even pray with the ones who come for help. Isn’t one of the reasons we help people in times of need is to also help with their spiritual needs. How can the govt. do this?
Click to expand...
Because it’s in the Constitution. The government cannot establish or promote any religion, no matter how much good it’s doing. Giving money to an organization is promoting it-therefore, no evangelization using the government’s money.

My concern with the HHS is that there is no way to avoid it. If you stop taking government funds you still have to follow the HHS policy. Remove that requirement and allow organizations to opt out of government funding and run their organizations as they choose. It’s clear that enough people are upset about HHS so I’m sure they will be at the ready to make up the loss of that government money.
 
10gr8kids said:
This is what I always wonder about.

If the Church laity was more giving and caring on their own as opposed to being forced by govt., wouldn’t it be a better sign of Christ’s love. Wouldn’t the people who are helped have a better understanding of Christian love instead of some feeling entitled to help from the govt.

Wouldn’t we who give out of love rather than forced by the govt receive more grace from God for our giving.

Already some charitable orgs. that take some money from the govt. to help cover costs are being told that if they take govt. money they can’t also preach the gospel or even pray with the ones who come for help. Isn’t one of the reasons we help people in times of need is to also help with their spiritual needs. How can the govt. do this?
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons I have always been concerned about the welfare policies of the US, even before I became a Catholic. They take money out of our pay, say they are going to use it to care for the needy, and what effect does that have on us? We become like Scrooge, saying, well, I gave at the office, and there are government programs. We no longer are moved by compassion to share what God has given us with others.

The welfare thing had a huge push forward with the Depression and FDR, when our economy was so overwhelmed.
 
mamaslo said:
From what I understand about Catholic Social Teaching is that government should be for helping people. The laws should be truly life-giving.

If you see that as liberal, then ok.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not quite right. *People *are supposed to help people. it is the government’s task to ensure that all this happens, and that may require some “interference” with people, but overall, the government should be more of a referee or administrator than a Robin Hood.

Laws should indeed be structured to help people attain Heaven, tho 🙂
 
Seeker1961 said:
Because it’s in the Constitution. The government cannot establish or promote any religion, no matter how much good it’s doing. Giving money to an organization is promoting it-therefore, no evangelization using the government’s money.
.
Click to expand...
That was my point. Government clearly cannot do what God calls us to do. That is why I don’t understand a catholic’s liberal position on social issues. If they truly care about people, which I’m sure they do, they need to care about the WHOLE person, their spiritual and temporal needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top