Is Catholic Social Teaching Inherently Liberal?

[Elizabeth502]

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.

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.

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.

I have juxtaposed these two posts because I think one “explains” the other. The problem with the well-meaning latter post is that practicing Christians, and most especially practicing Catholics, are not among the wealthiest of the country, as a group (jpercentage-wise). There was a time when wealthy Catholics made up a larger portion of donating Catholics (to the Church, and to causes). Today, the episcopate knows it cannot solicit sufficient funds from Catholics in the pews to cover the country’s “social justice needs” as defined by Catholic social teaching.

In secular soceity at large, the premise which has been gradually assimilated into national consciousness, is that whatever the economic need is, it is the central government’s role to provide that need. (That is a secular liberal mindset.) Notice also that the “need” is not necessarily subject to scrutiny, as to the urgency of the need (i.e., universal human rights, i.e., Catholic social justice), nor as to the possible options for satisfying that need. If a perceived need exists, it has become an unquestioned response that the government, through the taxpayers (of whatever economic status those taxpayers are) to fund those needs.

Those are the combined three problems: lack of scrutiny + assumption of State responsibility + insufficient financial resources of Catholics to fund the “social justice needs” of others. I see our Church leaders as unfortunately, and probably not consciously (as gradually as the rest of the country) having become allied with these assumptions, the logical conclusions of which are:

(1) All apparent needs are social justice mandates, but secular society leads the charge in defining needs.

(2) Social justice needs cannot be filled by practicing Catholics, privately or “corporately” (via Church). For verification of that, note that the single collection opportunties (or sometimes twice a year) for things like Bishops’ Appeals and CRS often extend for several weeks now. Parishes cannot collect their goals within a single collection, and often not over several opportunities.

(3) All social justice needs demand cash solutions. (Note that it was not the local Catholic social service groups which initiated San Francisco’s “Care-Not-Cash” program. It was the intiiative of Mayor Gavin Newsom of Hijacking Marriage fame.)

(4) Only government subsidies, or government replacement programs, address social justice needs sufficiently.

Adding to the 4 above principles, is the current culture of segregating religious action and religious voices from secular solutions. “Faith-based Initiatives” (George W. Bush), supported by the government, has been a controversial concept among secularists. But an alliance of religious faiths, plural, and government is an efficient possibility, as long as agreement can be reached congressionally on what to fund. In the current climate, that is difficult.

I am just as perturbed as the OP is about this whole theme, not only for the reasons he states, but also because Roman Catholic bishops are not secular economic experts. There may be a bishop or two among them who has a better grasp of macroeconomics than others do, but given the statements the body as a whole has made, it is apparent to me that they are not well-equipped to make judgments about specific solutions (or, better said, judgments about excluding solutions other than intellectually “lazy” ones many on the Left subscribe to – i.e., let “the government” do it). To date, the official statements do not sound significantly different than the headlines and rhetoric on MSNBC’s The Ed Show.

No, Mark, well-educated as I am in my faith, I do not believe that Catholic Social Teaching is inherently liberal (or inherently conservative) – depending on how those terms are defined.

 

[St_Francis]

I have juxtaposed these two posts because I think one “explains” the other. The problem with the well-meaning latter post is that practicing Christians, and most especially practicing Catholics, are not among the wealthiest of the country, as a group (jpercentage-wise). There was a time when wealthy Catholics made up a larger portion of donating Catholics (to the Church, and to causes). Today, the episcopate knows it cannot solicit sufficient funds from Catholics in the pews to cover the country’s “social justice needs” as defined by Catholic social teaching.

In secular soceity at large, the premise which has been gradually assimilated into national consciousness, is that whatever the economic need is, it is the central government’s role to provide that need. (That is a secular liberal mindset.) Notice also that the “need” is not necessarily subject to scrutiny, as to the urgency of the need (i.e., universal human rights, i.e., Catholic social justice), nor as to the possible options for satisfying that need. If a perceived need exists, it has become an unquestioned response that the government, through the taxpayers (of whatever economic status those taxpayers are) to fund those needs.

Those are the combined three problems: lack of scrutiny + assumption of State responsibility + insufficient financial resources of Catholics to fund the “social justice needs” of others. I see our Church leaders as unfortunately, and probably not consciously (as gradually as the rest of the country) having become allied with these assumptions, the logical conclusions of which are:

(1) All apparent needs are social justice mandates, but secular society leads the charge in defining needs.

(2) Social justice needs cannot be filled by practicing Catholics, privately or “corporately” (via Church). For verification of that, note that the single collection opportunties (or sometimes twice a year) for things like Bishops’ Appeals and CRS often extend for several weeks now. Parishes cannot collect their goals within a single collection, and often not over several opportunities.

(3) All social justice needs demand cash solutions. (Note that it was not the local Catholic social service groups which initiated San Francisco’s “Care-Not-Cash” program. It was the intiiative of Mayor Gavin Newsom of Hijacking Marriage fame.)

(4) Only government subsidies, or government replacement programs, address social justice needs sufficiently.

Adding to the 4 above principles, is the current culture of segregating religious action and religious voices from secular solutions. “Faith-based Initiatives” (George W. Bush), supported by the government, has been a controversial concept among secularists. But an alliance of religious faiths, plural, and government is an efficient possibility, as long as agreement can be reached congressionally on what to fund. In the current climate, that is difficult.

I am just as perturbed as the OP is about this whole theme, not only for the reasons he states, but also because Roman Catholic bishops are not secular economic experts. There may be a bishop or two among them who has a better grasp of macroeconomics than others do, but given the statements the body as a whole has made, it is apparent to me that they are not well-equipped to make judgments about specific solutions (or, better said, judgments about excluding solutions other than intellectually “lazy” ones many on the Left subscribe to – i.e., let “the government” do it). To date, the official statements do not sound significantly different than the headlines and rhetoric on MSNBC’s The Ed Show.

Wow!

No, Mark, well-educated as I am in my faith, I do not believe that Catholic Social Teaching is inherently liberal (or inherently conservative) – depending on how those terms are defined.

Both current US political liberalism and US political conservatism come out of the same so-called Enlightenment philosophy–so naturally neither will match up with Catholic social teaching.

 

[10gr8kids]

Elizabeth,

I’m not very smart and it took me reading your post about four times, but I think I finally figured out what you were saying. Lol.

The part I got was that Catholics on a whole don’t have much to share. Then I think you were saying that secular society thinks everything automatically is a need that can be taken care of with money. Whether it’s a true need or not is not really considered, just assumed it is a real need.

I just wanted to let you know what I got from your post, in case I didn’t understand. Which is a very good possibility, like I said I’m not real smart.

What I wanted to respond to your post is that I wonder if we Catholics, and Christians as a whole, could give more than we do? Do we spend to much on indulging our own wants, and looking on these things as needs.

I do agree with President Obama on one thing he recently said. We don’t do it ourselves. The only thing is it’s God we should be thanking, not the govt.

Maybe we should show our appreciation to God for his blessings by not indulging in our own wants. Most of the Catholics I know may not be the richest, but they sure aren’t the poorest either. And I don’t know what they give, but I would be willing to bet we could all give more than we do.

If the govt. would get off our backs we would probably have even more to give. The problem is will we respond to the needs of others even if it means we would have to sacrifice some things we think we need. If we did I believe God would bless us greatly.

[bibledrb]mal 3:10-11[/bibledrb]

 

[markomalley]

No, Mark, well-educated as I am in my faith, I do not believe that Catholic Social Teaching is inherently liberal (or inherently conservative) – depending on how those terms are defined.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response.

I agree that Catholic Social Teaching is, and should be, apolitical. Sadly, many politicians have attempted to co-opt it. And, sadly, many Catholics have bought into it, believing that political solutions will solve problems that are, at the core, spiritual.

 

[Seeker1961]

Thanks for the very thoughtful response.

I agree that Catholic Social Teaching is, and should be, apolitical. Sadly, many politicians have attempted to co-opt it. And, sadly, many Catholics have bought into it, believing that political solutions will solve problems that are, at the core, spiritual.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth,

I’m not very smart and it took me reading your post about four times, but I think I finally figured out what you were saying. Lol.

You sound pretty smart to me. Lol. You got all of it. I had just wanted to lay out the trajectory (the logical trajectory), and how we got from Point A (the Gospel) to Point B (the Welfare State) to Point C (The Gospel = The Welfare State), to Point D (The Welfare State = a comprehensive Catholic mandate of “social justice”; people will not provide + people cannot provide; therefore we surrender social justice to the State.) Much of it has been an indirect process which has been reductionist.

The part I got was that Catholics on a whole don’t have much to share. Then I think you were saying that secular society thinks everything automatically is a need that can be taken care of with money. Whether it’s a true need or not is not really considered, just assumed it is a real need.

Accurate critical reading.

I just wanted to let you know what I got from your post, in case I didn’t understand. Which is a very good possibility, like I said I’m not real smart.

Again, obviously no worries in the brain department.

What I wanted to respond to your post is that I wonder if we Catholics, and Christians as a whole, could give more than we do? Do we spend to much on indulging our own wants, and looking on these things as needs.

I did hear you, and I apologize if I seemed to dismiss the important point. I “collapsed” that point into my discussion of the bishops’ understanding of the pocketbooks of Catholics collectively. Yes, your above statement is somewhat correct. Lots of Catholics could probably give somewhat more (privately, to social justice causes, or through their parishes/dioceses), but fewer than you may realize. The wealth of practicing Catholics has taken a nose dive in the last 20+ years, and certainly even in the longer backwards arc, when richer Catholics attended Mass, donated generously to their individual parishes so that parishes were not operating on deficits (which is routine today), and could have been called upon for certain social justice donations if Church leaders asked.

The irony is that many in line to receive social justice are attending Mass, in greater proportion than those in a position to give suffiiciently.

Maybe we should show our appreciation to God for his blessings by not indulging in our own wants. Most of the Catholics I know may not be the richest, but they sure aren’t the poorest either. And I don’t know what they give, but I would be willing to bet we could all give more than we do.

But even if all of those Catholics gave much more, it would not be enough to fill the gaps in society. So the question remains, what is the extent of society’s (those who can afford) obligation to those “without”?

There are some generally unexamined assumptions in the nation, which have to do with personal economies. That affects assumptions by the rich, by the poor, by the Church, and by the gov’t. It is such a no-boundaries material economy, that many residents have lost sight of what is essential for heatlh and security, vs. what is dispensable. (I started a thread in Faith & Finances on the Home Improvement Obsession by the wealthy; those of us who live in or near pockets of wealth will resonate with what I said there.)

~The wealthy or wealth-i-er spend beyond their needs, as a group. They do so (obviously) because they can, and because (I know this because I have hung out with that crowd) it is absolutely a status symbol for them – a “requirement” of membership – to spend, and to compete with each other in spending. It’s not just what their portfolios look like. Those who spend more are considered of higher status.

~Those who can be called middle-class (lower or upper) also spend at least somewhat beyond their needs, as a group. (Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.)

~The poor (working and non-working poor) have some genuine needs. They also have expectations, modeled for them by the upper classes and by the government, that they are entitled to certain other “needs.” Not all of the poor, by the way, do assume that others should provide those addiitonal “needs”! But local and state and the nat’l gov’t is informing the general voting public that these “needs” have been redefined as essential, not additional.

In this latter regard, I think the model of the nuclear family is a good model, and one, btw, which the Bishops would probably agree with: we think of the poor as part of our family. Well, as a parent (of 10 Great Kids! ), do you grant every “need” of every child? Unless you’ve got secret wealth, I would think not. You weigh their needs, including even their genuine needs. You weigh that against what will happen if you grant this to son A and not daughter B simultaneously. You weigh how that will affect the whole family budget, including your spouse’s needs, and including the unexpected. You consider whether, in granting one need, the financial health of the family as a whole – its ability to bounce back if it encounters a crisis – will be affected.

My younger daughter has lots of needs right now; I am unable to provide them all. (A separate question would be, Should I provide them all, if I had the means, before she is in a position to find employment?) So she does without, but she is not in physical or medical or emotional danger. She would get further, faster, if I could provide some privileges/advantages to a more rapid growth for her into the professional class. But I can’t. So her arrival there will be slower than ideal and more dependent on her ingenuity than on my largesse. I do not consider that to be a genuine crisis.

And in this regard, we also have to consider assumptions in this nation that have grown around language we have used. A trigger word is “disadvantaged,” building off of the above paragraph. The country has come to assume that everyone is entitled to “an advantage,” and that not having an advantage creates “disadvantage,” which suddenly is then a social justice problem.

If the govt. would get off our backs we would probably have even more to give.

Well, good point, in that if we are merely taxed to death for out-of-control gov’t programs, there will be even precious less to give voluntarily for the truly needy. Many of the gov’t programs currently being funded are for supplemental programs (“advantages”) which have come to be regarded as essential and without substitute. Those need to be examined.