Is there a contradiction in teaching here?

[Illmatic15]

I have been reading a lot of Catholic social teaching, since that it interests me a lot, and I came across two teachings that seem like they oppose each other:

First I found this in Pope John Paul II’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which looks like it’s endorsing popular soverignity:

1. The subject of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who have sovereignty. In various forms, this people transfers the exercise of sovereignty to those whom it freely elects as its representatives, but it preserves the prerogative to assert this sovereignty in evaluating the work of those charged with governing and also in replacing them when they do not fulfil their functions satisfactorily. Although this right is operative in every State and in every kind of political regime, a democratic form of government, due to its procedures for verification, allows and guarantees its fullest application.[803] The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering “just” the ways in which political authority is exercised.

But then I came across a few lines in Pope Pius X’s encyclical Notre charge apostolique, which seems to say otherwise:

Our Predecessor denounced “A certain Democracy which goes so far in wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people and aims at the suppression of classes and their leveling down.”
…
At first, the Sillon does not wish to abolish political authority; on the contrary, it considers it necessary; but it wishes to divide it, or rather to multiply it in such a way that each citizen will become a kind of king. Authority, so they concede, comes from God, but it resides primarily in the people and expresses itself by means of elections or, better still, by selection. However, it still remains in the hands of the people; it does not escape their control. It will be an external authority, yet only in appearance; in fact, it will be internal because it will be an authority assented to.
…
The Sillon places public authority primarily in the people, from whom it then flows into the government in such a manner, however, that it continues to reside in the people. But Leo XIII absolutely condemned this doctrine in his Encyclical “Diuturnum Illud” on political government in which he said:

“Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in society do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”

Admittedly, the Sillon holds that authority - which first places in the people - descends from God, but in such a way: “as to return from below upwards, whilst in the organization of the Church power descends from above downwards.”

Any thoughts? Am I missing something here? Also, the part in Pius X’s encyclical where he condemns their idea of dividing political authority, isn’t a division of political authority a part of subsidiarity, one of the most important aspects of Church social teaching? Plus, I would think that popular soverignity would be the endorsed idea of the Church, as the Church teaches that the state is to be the servant of man, not the other way around, and I would think it would better serve the human person if the person was the one who had political soverignity.
Pax Christi

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It is fair to say that the popes’ teachings on democracy have evolved over the years. Many popes generally considered republicanism to be anti-Christian. This created some conflict between the American and Italian bishops. “Christian Democratic” political parties were organized with the goal of reconciling the Church and electoral democracy. Pius IX and Pius X were bitter at the loss of the Papal States and Rome to the Italian empire. Recent popes have been completely reconciled to the Italian Republic and to democracy and republicanism in general.

We must remember that there is nothing doctrinal about any pope’s political opinions.

 

[Mintaka]

In Italy in those times, republicanism was usually anti-Christian. Violently so.

But remember that Italian city-states had spent most of the Middle Ages trying out every possible form of republic, democracy, aristocracy, meritocracy, plutocracy, monarchy, guild commune, oligarchy, et al. Heck, Siena once went through 14 different forms of government in 3 years, if I recall correctly.

During all that time, the popes had no problem whatsoever with any of these forms of government.

(St. Catherine of Siena didn’t get any visions from Jesus where He ripped on any of them, either. Her problem was with buying offices and general corruption, or violent anarchy in the streets. It was not with specific forms of government.)

 

[Illmatic15]

It is fair to say that the popes’ teachings on democracy have evolved over the years. Many popes generally considered republicanism to be anti-Christian. This created some conflict between the American and Italian bishops. “Christian Democratic” political parties were organized with the goal of reconciling the Church and electoral democracy. Pius IX and Pius X were bitter at the loss of the Papal States and Rome to the Italian empire. Recent popes have been completely reconciled to the Italian Republic and to democracy and republicanism in general.

We must remember that there is nothing doctrinal about any pope’s political opinions.

I understand that papal encyclicals aren’t infallible, but they may contain infallible truth. I’m just trying to understand which aspects of catholic social doctrine is infallible. And encyclicals are still authoritative, and I find it strange how it seems to have went from a strong condemnation of popular sovereignty went to full endorsement and requirement of it. I’ve been confused what exactly to make of Catholic social teaching, and how strongly it has authority on a believer.

 

[Illmatic15]

In Italy in those times, republicanism was usually anti-Christian. Violently so.

But remember that Italian city-states had spent most of the Middle Ages trying out every possible form of republic, democracy, aristocracy, meritocracy, plutocracy, monarchy, guild commune, oligarchy, et al. Heck, Siena once went through 14 different forms of government in 3 years, if I recall correctly.

During all that time, the popes had no problem whatsoever with any of these forms of government.

(St. Catherine of Siena didn’t get any visions from Jesus where He ripped on any of them, either. Her problem was with buying offices and general corruption, or violent anarchy in the streets. It was not with specific forms of government.)

I agree, the Church teaches that the form of government doesn’t matter, just as long as it pursues the common good. I’ve also always been confused on the Church’s relationship with classical liberalism, as certain rights, such as free speech, free press, and religious liberty seem to have been accepted by the Church progressively over time. I could be wrong though, as I’ve heard that the religious liberty condemned in the 19th century meant something different from what it did during Vatican II.

 

[St_Francis]

I’d say it’s a 3-part problem: pragmatics, language, and the way Church teaching works.

So, Church teaching generally is like teaching someone to drive. If they get too close to the middle of the road, you tell them to move towards the edge. If they start getting too close to the edge, you instruct them to move towards the middle. Even tho you sometimes say move to the edge or move away from the edge, there is no contradiction because the goal is the middle, and one must be warned against both extremes, no?

As to language, democracy at one point meant rebellion against the established order to one extent or another, and this was bad. It was an extreme of democracy people needed to be warned against.

Later, democracy was a movement away from totalitarianism, and a huge improvement.

And pragmatics… the Church teaches error has no rights, but censorship by an anti-Catholic authority will smother our Faith. So, we agree to not censor them if they don’t censor us.

 

[Elizium23]

I understand that papal encyclicals aren’t infallible, but they may contain infallible truth. I’m just trying to understand which aspects of catholic social doctrine is infallible. And encyclicals are still authoritative, and I find it strange how it seems to have went from a strong condemnation of popular sovereignty went to full endorsement and requirement of it. I’ve been confused what exactly to make of Catholic social teaching, and how strongly it has authority on a believer.

I think that you are not so much concerned with infallibility per se as with doctrinal vs. prudential or disciplinary concerns. Not all doctrine is infallibly taught in the same way, but when a Pope speaks on political matters he is typically not even speaking doctrinally but prudentially, such as when the American bishops release statements on immigration reform.

 

[Illmatic15]

I think that you are not so much concerned with infallibility per se as with doctrinal vs. prudential or disciplinary concerns. Not all doctrine is infallibly taught in the same way, but when a Pope speaks on political matters he is typically not even speaking doctrinally but prudentially, such as when the American bishops release statements on immigration reform.

Really? I thought encyclicals were authoritative though? And there’s gotta be some parts of CST that has some kind of infallible (or at least solid) authority to it, such as subsidiarity, solidarity, respect for the dignity of the person, etc. I’ve been confused as to what power these teachings have. There must be some kind of doctrinal value to rerum novarum and subsequent documents.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I understand that papal encyclicals aren’t infallible, but they may contain infallible truth. I’m just trying to understand which aspects of catholic social doctrine is infallible. And encyclicals are still authoritative, and I find it strange how it seems to have went from a strong condemnation of popular sovereignty went to full endorsement and requirement of it. I’ve been confused what exactly to make of Catholic social teaching, and how strongly it has authority on a believer.

Really? I understand papal encyclicals are infallible in matters of faith and morals. And as I read the things you quoted, I don’t find a conflict. Power–all power, political or not, comes from God. In your second quote, the writer points out that there’s fault in those who say authority comes from the people–because it comes from God. Take out some of the extra phrasing in that first long, complex sentence and we’re left with “Modern writers…declare that all power comes from the people; …Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God…”

Based on just these quote you provided, I simply don’t see any conflict. Your first quote from is from section 395 of JPII Compendium of Social Doctrine. It’s a long document. My brief skimming of that document reveals 383 this quote, “The biblical message provides endless inspiration for Christian reflection on* political power**, recalling that **it comes from God **and is an integral part of the order that he created. *”

Both popes in these encyclical messages re-affirm that the power of government comes from God. JPII wrote an encyclical to address concerns in later part of the 20th century; he came from a communist country where political authority often usurped the rights of families and individuals. Pope Pius X died in 1914, (three years before the Communist Revolution in Russia). They wrote their encyclicals at a different era in history. They wrote in different times and had different things to say, but merely saying something different doesn’t mean their statements conflict.

 

[Genesis315]

A couple points. First, the letter of St. Pius X was not one to the universal Church, but addressed to France only. Likewise, the Compendium is only a document of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and dedicated to Pope John Paul II, but does not carry papal authority.

However, the idea in St. Pius X’s letter is found in the encyclical to the whole Church from Leo XIII, Diuturnum:
Leo XIII:

1. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.

The Compendium is intended as a summation–its true authority is in the authority of the actual documents it cites. In what is excerpted in the OP, it cites passages from Centissimus Annus and Pacem in Terris:
St. John XXIII:

1. The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority. Hence the above teaching is consonant with any genuinely democratic form of government.(36)

St. John Paul II:

1. The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.93

These don’t seem to say anything about whether power comes from God directly to the rulers chosen or mediately through the people. Both those passages cite to this radio address from Pius XII, which, if anything only reinforces what was in Diuturnum:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

The Compendium seems to instead be adopting St. Robert Bellarmine’s (a Doctor of the Church) position:
St. Robert Bellarmine:

First, political power considered in general, not descending in particular to Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy, comes directly from God alone; for this follows of necessity from the nature of man, since that nature comes from Him Who made it; besides, this power derives from the natural law, since it does not depend upon the consent of men; for, willing or unwilling, they must be ruled over by some one, unless they wish the human race to perish, which is against a primary instinct of nature. But natural law is Divine law, therefore, government was instituted by Divine law, and this seems to be the correct meaning of St. Paul when he says, “He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” 66

Note, secondly, that this power resides, as in its subject, immediately in the whole state, for this power is by Divine law, but Divine law gives this power to no particular man, therefore Divine law gives this power to the collected body. Furthermore, in the absence of positive law, there is no good reason why, in a multitude of equals, one rather than another should dominate. Therefore, power belongs to the collected body. Finally, human society ought to be a perfect State, therefore, it should have the power to preserve itself, hence, to punish disturbers of the peace, etc.

Note, in the third place, that, by the same natural law, this power is delegated by the multitude to one or several, for the State cannot of itself exercise this power, therefore, it is held to delegate it to some individual, or to several, and this authority of rulers considered thus in general is both by natural law and by Divine law, nor could the entire human race assembled together decree the opposite, that is, that there should be neither rulers nor leaders.

Note, in the fourth place, that individual forms of government in specific instances derive from the law of nations, not from the natural law, for, as is evident, it depends on the consent of the people to decide whether kings, or consuls, or other magistrates are to be established in authority over them; and, if there be legitimate cause, the people can change a kingdom into an aristocracy, or an aristocracy into a democracy, and vice versa, as we read was done in Rome.

Note, in the fifth place, that it follows from what has been said that this power in specific instances comes indeed from God, but through the medium of human wisdom and choice, as do all other things which pertain to the law of nations. For the law of nations is a sort of conclusion drawn from the natural law by human reason; 67 from which are inferred two differences between the political and the Ecclesiastical power, one in view of the subject, for political power resides in the people, and Ecclesiastical power in the individual, as it were immediately in the subject (on whom it devolves); the other difference is in view of the efficient cause, because political power considered in general is by Divine law, but considered in particular it is by the law of nations. Ecclesiastical power, however, considered from every point of view, is by Divine law, and immediately from God.

Bellarmine’s well-known position was not definitively condemned in Diuturnum so I don’t think it would be heresy to adopt it (especially given it’s inclusion by a Pontifical Council and the fact that Bellarmine was proclaimed a Doctor well after the contrary encyclicals were promulgated). But it seems the “safer” doctrine is the one in Diuturnum since that is the document of higher authority.

 

[Illmatic15]

Really? I understand papal encyclicals are infallible in matters of faith and morals. And as I read the things you quoted, I don’t find a conflict. Power–all power, political or not, comes from God. In your second quote, the writer points out that there’s fault in those who say authority comes from the people–because it comes from God. Take out some of the extra phrasing in that first long, complex sentence and we’re left with “Modern writers…declare that all power comes from the people; …Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God…”

Based on just these quote you provided, I simply don’t see any conflict. Your first quote from is from section 395 of JPII Compendium of Social Doctrine. It’s a long document. My brief skimming of that document reveals 383 this quote, "The biblical message provides endless inspiration for Christian reflection on* political power***, recalling that **it comes from God **and is an integral part of the order that he created. "

Both popes in these encyclical messages re-affirm that the power of government comes from God. JPII wrote an encyclical to address concerns in later part of the 20th century; he came from a communist country where political authority often usurped the rights of families and individuals. Pope Pius X died in 1914, (three years before the Communist Revolution in Russia). They wrote their encyclicals at a different era in history. They wrote in different times and had different things to say, but merely saying something different doesn’t mean their statements conflict.

Idk the exact details about encyclicals, but I’ve read that they are not infallible in themselves. I’ll try to find a good authority on the subject.

And I still see a difference, because he was condemning the Sillon because of their view on how authority comes from God. He acknowledged that they still believe all authority comes from God, but he was criticizing their belief that God gives this power to the people, who then gives it to their leader(s), a view that JPII later endorses.

Admittedly, the Sillon holds that authority - which first places in the people - descends from God, but in such a way: “as to return from below upwards, whilst in the organization of the Church power descends from above downwards.”

See how Pius seems to condemn a bottom-up view of political authority, while JPII supports it? Both affirm that authority comes ultimately from God, but these still look like they contradict each other.
Peace

 

[Illmatic15]

A couple points. First, the letter of St. Pius X was not one to the universal Church, but addressed to France only. Likewise, the Compendium is only a document of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and dedicated to Pope John Paul II, but does not carry papal authority.

However, the idea in St. Pius X’s letter is found in the encyclical to the whole Church from Leo XIII, Diuturnum:

The Compendium is intended as a summation–its true authority is in the authority of the actual documents it cites. In what is excerpted in the OP, it cites passages from Centissimus Annus and Pacem in Terris:

These don’t seem to say anything about whether power comes from God directly to the rulers chosen or mediately through the people. Both those passages cite to this radio address from Pius XII, which, if anything only reinforces what was in Diuturnum:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

The Compendium seems to instead be adopting St. Robert Bellarmine’s (a Doctor of the Church) position:

Bellarmine’s well-known position was not definitively condemned in Diuturnum so I don’t think it would be heresy to adopt it (especially given it’s inclusion by a Pontifical Council and the fact that Bellarmine was proclaimed a Doctor well after the contrary encyclicals were promulgated). But it seems the “safer” doctrine is the one in Diuturnum since that is the document of higher authority.

They actually do speak about whether power comes from God directly to the rulers or mediately through the people:

Admittedly, the Sillon holds that authority - which first places in the people - descends from God, but in such a way: “as to return from below upwards, whilst in the organization of the Church power descends from above downwards.”

But besides its being abnormal for the delegation of power to ascend, since it is in its nature to descend, Leo XIII refuted in advance this attempt to reconcile Catholic Doctrine with the error of philosophism. For, he continues: “It is necessary to remark here that those who preside over the government of public affairs may indeed, in certain cases, be chosen by the will and judgment of the multitude without repugnance or opposition to Catholic doctrine. But whilst this choice marks out the ruler, it does not confer upon him the authority to govern; it does not delegate the power, it designates the person who will be invested with it.”

And you can see in JPII’s quote that he says authority is in the hands of the people from God, while Pius states a more top-down approach.

Also thanks for the Bellarmine quote, it seems to make sense. However I’ve always wondered: does the Church require for political authority to be hierarchal? Or can we have a type of system where the laws are legislated and enforced by all?
Pax Christi

 

[Genesis315]

They actually do speak about whether power comes from God directly to the rulers or mediately through the people:

And you can see in JPII’s quote that he says authority is in the hands of the people from God, while Pius states a more top-down approach.

The actual quote from JPII in Centesimus Annus I quoted doesn’t say one way or the other, other than citing the radio message of Pius XII, which corroborates the pastoral letter St. Pius X sent to the French bishops (and more significantly, the encyclicals of Leo XIII on the topic). The quote you provided in the OP is not from Centesimus Annus or JPII, but simply from the Compendium of Social Doctrine–a document of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (it is not a papal act like the encyclical I quoted). The Compendium was dedicated to JPII, not promulgated with his authority.

Also thanks for the Bellarmine quote, it seems to make sense. However I’ve always wondered: does the Church require for political authority to be hierarchal? Or can we have a type of system where the laws are legislated and enforced by all?
Pax Christi

In theory, especially with a very small society, I think it might not necessarily be hierarchical. On the other hand, in practice, the natural order tends to almost always require a hierarchy (including even the most fundamental society, the family). Human history and experience shows little deviation from this order.