Do you realize how big of a question that is? I suppose there isn’t one general consensus overall, but that it varies by time studied, the field and subject being studied, plus much of it would come down to what the historians themselves think. When it comes to the moral and doctrinal positions the Church teaches I don’t think many historians would affirm or deny a particular teaching, but only confirm that it had been a constant teaching.
One book that comes to my mind and I also had the privliege of communicating with the author for a little while is Kenneth Heineman’s, “A Catholic New Deal in Pittsburgh.” It discusses the activities of several labor priests in helping the poor and unemployed during the Great Depression. In general it’s about the Church’s response to this crisis and it digs into some of the Church’s encyclicals and discusses efforts to combat the Communists and Socialists in the area who, with their soup kitchens and bread lines, were doing many of the same things the Catholics were doing also. Overall he treats the Church and its teachings with respect and the faithful, while not a huge part of the story, are seen in a positive light as active participants and people who know what is taught and want to be there, not a bunch of people that are duped or cowed into attending.
I think with many historians though the Church doesn’t come onto their radar screen even when it should or even when it would be nice to see more on it. I’ve read a few different studies on unionism in the steel industry where the role of the Church could’ve been highlighted more or emphasized, but it wasn’t. It was almost like the historian treated it like they treated religion in their own lives, either something done once a week and forgot about or something not practiced at all and when they come across a subject that acts differently than they think they don’t know quite what to do.
ChadS
