The Authority of Catholic Social Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is giving to the poor, or being charitable to those who need it, an infallible teaching? Is that what you’re asking?
 
No it is not. To use one example, the Church has advocated for the necessity of the state to stimulate the economy when needed, as the Compendium states. Does that mean in all situations a Catholic must be in favor of such a proposal even if he feels it won’t solve the current problem?
 
Most of Catholic social teaching is part of the Ordinary Magisterium but finds its roots in Extraordinary magisterial teaching. It can be infallible, but as it is presented now, it is debated on what is infallible and what is not. It is easy to determine infallibility when it comes from an ecumenical council or when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. There is, however, one other source of infallible statements which make papal statements on matters of faith and morals outside of the ex cathedra scenario which make it very difficult to determine infallibility in the day to day.

If the Pope speaks in conjunction with the college of bishops, then it is ordinary magisterium. If the Pope speaks on behalf of the college of bishops as its head, then it is extraordinary magisterium.

If the Pope expresses his own personal opinion on faith and morals and how to apply them pastorally, then it is not infallible. If, however, the Pope says the exact same thing intending it to draw its authority from the office of the Papacy in the sense that he is the head of the universal college of bishops, then that same statement is infallible. This third source of infallible statements is what throws most moral theologians for a loop with regard to papal statements.

For example, did Pope Francis add the new paragraph on capital punishment into the Catechism using his authority as head of the college of bishops or did he add the paragraph using his ordinary magisterial authority as head of the Roman Curia? That’s the big question.

We also find the question of how far does infallibility extend. As infallibility is an exercise of the universal extraordinary magisterium, does it only apply to universal matters of faith and morals or can infallible statements be made in judgement of specific cases? Can the Pope infallibly say that something is immoral in a certain circumstance for a certain person or can it only be applied to universal statements on faith and morals since it is a function of the universal authority of the extraordinary magisterium?

Many moral theologians kind of just shrug and try to do the best they can.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn’t. The state can be wrong.

Those generalized statements about governance are just that…generalized.
 
Thanks for the replies. I hope it doesn’t sound scrupulous but these issues go through my head a lot.

For example, the Compendium speaks of the necessity of providing the populace with a stable currency. So to use two vastly different scenarios, does that mean advocacy of modern monetary theory is sinful, or is advocating for a currency experiment ala Silvio Gessel forbidden by the Church?

It gets tricky for me.
 
It’s not tricky. Just take general statements at face value.
 
In the sense of governance and economic theory, I would first go to the encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anni. These are more firm sources for the origins of Catholic social teachings of the Church. The Compendium is an ordinary magisterial document from the curia. The encyclicals are closer to a source of extraordinary magisterium (even if it is still debated if it is used in encyclicals).

While he is not directly part of the magisterium, Fr. Pierre Teilhard Chardin, SJ was a Catholic theologian who greatly the influenced Catholic social teaching of later popes. He is also worth reading on the subject. Just to note on Chardin, he was also a secular philosopher. In his books of pure philosophy he did, in fact, make ambiguities and errors which contradicted doctrine and were warned against by the Church. Many if not, most of these were published after his death. If you stick to his books of pure theology he wrote in his lifetime, you should be good. Even Pope Benedict has highly praised his theology.
 
Last edited:
Stable currency translates into stable purchasing power,
It allows one to save, and plan . And all what you can do with your dollars for example long term as well. Yours is a stable currency and that is good.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Is Catholic social teaching part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Is it infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
Sure.

But one should note that it is very general.

For example, you write:
StudentMI said:
To use one example, the Church has advocated for the necessity of the state to stimulate the economy when needed, as the Compendium states. Does that mean in all situations a Catholic must be in favor of such a proposal even if he feels it won’t solve the current problem?
Click to expand...
The answer is almost trivial. If Church teaches that it is necessary for the state to stimulate the economy when needed, but in this specific case it is not really needed, then it follows that it is not necessary to stimulate the economy in this case.

How to know if it is needed? The Church leaves that to economists, politicians, voters (and the like) to decide (using the guidelines given by the Church).
StudentMI said:
For example, the Compendium speaks of the necessity of providing the populace with a stable currency. So to use two vastly different scenarios, does that mean advocacy of modern monetary theory is sinful, or is advocating for a currency experiment ala Silvio Gessel forbidden by the Church?
Click to expand...
Well, ask yourself if they would result in stable currency. Ask yourself what would count as a stable currency.

Also ask yourself what the (realistic) alternatives are.
 
Last edited:
Suggested reading: start with Rerum Novarum (1891) as the foundational text on Catholic Social Teaching; then Quadragesimo anno (1931), then Mater et Magistra (1961), then Centesimus annus (1991). The first three were required reading when I was in college.
 
Well the thing is I’ve already read most of them. Lately I’ve been reading analyses that try to synthesize all that’s been said, and in one case an attempt to put forward actual policy proposals based on it. I just was confused as to whether they were infallible or not, whether we must assent to them.

I admit I struggle with some of the proposals given what I know of economics and history, which is admittedly a layman’s view but I have read quite a deal on the subject.
 
StudentMI said:
I admit I struggle with some of the proposals given what I know of economics and history, which is admittedly a layman’s view but I have read quite a deal on the subject.
Click to expand...
Can you give some examples of those proposals you are struggling with?
 
I’ll start hacking my way through article (sorry, not now, it’s late, and I’m striving for earlier bedtimes), if you’ll take a look at mine. The Magisterium and Catholic Social Teaching I think this priest does a good job clarifying what is and isn’t Magisterial.

I think we all come into the Catholicism armed with our biases and quietly hope that our faith provides a loophole to accommodate them. But it’s unfortunately more complex than that.
 
Sure. From the Compendium:

“188. “Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions” [401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.”

That’s all fine and good in theory but what I’ve gathered from history is that it rarely happens that a state scales back. There is a concept called the ratchet effect which states that during emergencies the state will step in to solve it, then scale back its involvement but never to the extent it had been before. Thus little by little the state encroaches more and more upon society. And lest anyone think I’m coming at this from a libertarian mindset, my main concern with such ratcheting is local, decentralized decision making embodied in local government and institutions. At least in this country such ratcheting has led to conditions that enable the growth of corporate power through collusion with the state and the state stepping in to reduce externalities in favor of large business.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
That’s all fine and good in theory but what I’ve gathered from history is that it rarely happens that a state scales back. There is a concept called the ratchet effect which states that during emergencies the state will step in to solve it, then scale back its involvement but never to the extent it had been before. Thus little by little the state encroaches more and more upon society. And lest anyone think I’m coming at this from a libertarian mindset, my main concern with such ratcheting is local, decentralized decision making embodied in local government and institutions. At least in this country such ratcheting has led to conditions that enable the growth of corporate power through collusion with the state and the state stepping in to reduce externalities in favor of large business.
Click to expand...
That simply means that Catholic Social Teaching is not being followed, that it takes effort to follow it.

It is not very surprising. Not to mention that it doesn’t look that those examples of “ratchet effect” happened when one was even trying to be seen as following Catholic Social Teaching.

The Compendium does not say that one is going to succeed in scaling back the state (and it definitely does not say that the state will scale back on its own, without any effort), but that one should try to scale it back.

Catholic Social Teaching mostly says what goals we are supposed to have. It does not claim that we will achieve those goals all the time. It mostly doesn’t say how we are supposed to achieve those goals (usually that’s the job for politicians, economists and the like to decide, since much will depend on specific circumstances).
 
So it’s more like a goal to strive towards, not necessarily following proposals that sound similar?
 
StudentMI said:
For example, the Compendium speaks of the necessity of providing the populace with a stable currency.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat a motherhood statement. A government paying no heed to that issue would seem to deserve condemnation. However it does not follow that any act directed to improving stability is good.
 
blackforest said:
I’ll start hacking my way through article (sorry, not now, it’s late, and I’m striving for earlier bedtimes), if you’ll take a look at mine. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-magisterial-weight-of-catholic-social-teaching I think this priest does a good job clarifying what is and isn’t Magisterial.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Just read it. It does explain that Prudential judgement is left up to the faithful about the specific application. That kind of fits with what I said in reply to another post that it’s more a goal to work towards, as opposed to just voting when something sounds similar. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top