Whence Catholic Faith in Progress?

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m reading The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark and again I am confronted with a theological question that I have never been able to answer to my satisfaction, not even to a practical level of understanding:

What is the theological justification for social progress?

The book takes this for granted and focuses on how and why capitalism, science, and human rights orginated in Christiandom and not China, Islam, etc. It has helped me to better understand the myth of the “Dark Ages” and Enlightenment propaganda. But it presuposes that social progress is a good thing.

The closest that the author comes to this is a citation of Paul: 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

9 Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! 10 But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless.

11 When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. 12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity.[a] All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

This is not an idle question because there are very obvious social costs associated with social progress. It often forces people to accept change they didn’t invite. And often the modern Catholic Church finds itself arguing against progress or, at least, the engines that drive it. There is no shortage of Christians arguing for moderation of progress; it’s not just the Amish who cling to the old ways. Indeed, Catholicism can fundamentally be understood as at least in part preserving Sacred Tradition.

But in order to even have that theological conversation, we must first understand faith in progress. It’s one thing to have faith that progress will come to us while we sit passively, quite another thing to make the tradoffs entailed in actively creating progress.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Although I have yet to find an answer to this question, I came across an interestiong section of the book that may shed some light: Counter-Reformation Catholicism.

Soon after the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine in 312, there came to be essentially two Catholic churches. Prior to Constantine, the church was led by a dedicated, poorly paid, and rather ascetic clergy, who sometimes knowingly risked martyrdom. This group, and its heirs, constituted the church of piety. But when Constantine began to shower the church with privileges and subsidies, he "precipitated a stampede into the priesthood"12 by the sons of the upper classes, since church offices now produced high inncomes and had substantial political influence. Soon, church posiitions, even lowly parish pastorships, were bought and sold as investments-higher offices often carrying enormous price tags. This new church hierarchy formed the church of power. As pointed out in Chapter 2, a clergy of “investors” was unlikely to be hostile to commerce, and during the formation and rise of capitalism, the church of power led the way to accommodate traditional ascetic reeligious predilections to economic realities. Put another way, had the church of piety prevailed, Christianity probably would have continnued to denounce usury and to oppose profit and materialism in general, just as Islam still does.

The brutal shocks caused by the rapidly spreading Reformation disorganized the church, so much so that at the Council of Trent (1562-63) the church of piety was able to resume leadership. The sale and purchase of church offices ended and many worthy reforms were instituted, including the formation of a vast network of semiinaries to properly train priests. But there was a dark side too. The Counter-Reformation church displayed an anti-intellectual streak that had long been deflected by the church of power. New alarms about heresy now caused the church to suppress scholarship, thereby fostering misconceptions about religious opposition to sciience. Moreover, like their Puritan Protestant counterparts, the clergy of the church of piety were very ambivalent about wealth and were very suspicious of commerce. And just as Puritan divines exxpressed contempt for “ambition” and decried “covetousness,” the ascetic faction now in control of the church had a deep disdain for “progress” and “modernity.” Far better that people remain on farms and in villages, leading simple, humble, pious lives.

The irony of all this is, of course, that in recovering the lost virtues of the church, the leaders of the Counter-Reformation also restored a faith best suited for a far earlier time, a faith compatible with command economies but completely out of touch with democracy, let alone capitalism. It was this church that prevailed in southern Europe and in the New World colonies. And it was from these sources that came the recent expression by some Latin American church leaders of misguided anticapitalism and the left-wing fantasies of “liberation theology.”

 

[Rach620]

I’d suggest reading Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclicals Spe Salvi and Caritas in Veritate. Both discuss social/political progress and how it is to be understood by Christians. Also check out an older work of his which has been reprinted, a short book called Faith and the Future.

Today there are a lot of myths surrounding social progress, to the point where they have all been compounded together into ‘progressivism’. The political concept is almost utopian–we can work together to make the world a perfect place and avoid all of the ailments which have typically plagued society.

Christians do not believe this. We believe there is a divide between the City of God and city of man (see St. Augustine on this topic, as well). **Only **by the grace of God can we transform the world we live in to bring about the Kingdom of God; we can certainly not create a perfect world on earth.

Most of the means by which modern social progress have been achieved are disordered and destructive of human beings created in the image of God. Progressivism has yielded deviant political philosophies, such as fascism and Marxism/socialism, because it puts its faith and hope in man’s abilities alone, rather than in God. The election of Obama is a prime example of progressive ideology placing HOPE in one man’s abilities; I’m sure you’ve seen that campaign poster.

Technological advances clearly take place; even philosophical advances seem to take place. But true social progress, the progress of man? That occurs anew with each generation, with each person who struggles with sin and for perfection in virtue. We’re still committing the same old sins, we’re still harming our neighbors and weakening our communities because of the same old vices. Social progress? That will be in heaven, when the mystical body of Christ is no longer wounded by its members’ pride, greed, sloth, lust…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’d suggest reading Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclicals Spe Salvi and Caritas in Veritate. Both discuss social/political progress and how it is to be understood by Christians. Also check out an older work of his which has been reprinted, a short book called Faith and the Future.

These look very promising from the online summaries. I’ll dig into them.

Today there are a lot of myths surrounding social progress, to the point where they have all been compounded together into ‘progressivism’. The political concept is almost utopian–we can work together to make the world a perfect place and avoid all of the ailments which have typically plagued society. Christians do not believe this. We believe there is a divide between the City of God and city of man (see St. Augustine on this topic, as well). **Only **by the grace of God can we transform the world we live in to bring about the Kingdom of God; we can certainly not create a perfect world on earth. Most of the means by which modern social progress have been achieved are disordered and destructive of human beings created in the image of God. Progressivism has yielded deviant political philosophies, such as fascism and Marxism/socialism, because it puts its faith and hope in man’s abilities alone, rather than in God. The election of Obama is a prime example of progressive ideology placing HOPE in one man’s abilities; I’m sure you’ve seen that campaign poster.

What’s interesting is that there seems to have at one time been a Catholic concept of social progress that was hijacked by Proestants and secularists. We are all painfully familiar with modern failed utopias but it doesn’t follow that Cathlicism yearns for a Golden Age of the past (e.g. an agrarian society).

Technological advances clearly take place; even philosophical advances seem to take place. But true social progress, the progress of man? That occurs anew with each generation, with each person who struggles with sin and for perfection in virtue. We’re still committing the same old sins, we’re still harming our neighbors and weakening our communities because of the same old vices. Social progress? That will be in heaven, when the mystical body of Christ is no longer wounded by its members’ pride, greed, sloth, lust…

So are you saying here that there is no Catholic concept of social progress on earth? Is that what Benedict teaches in the encyclicals you quoted? One of the the interesting attributes of Catholicism is the idea of theological progress, that the Church teaches things today that were unrealized by the apostles, much less by the pre-Christian Jews. The most obvoius example of Christian social progress is the abolition of slavery.

 

[Rach620]

What’s interesting is that there seems to have at one time been a Catholic concept of social progress that was hijacked by Proestants and secularists. We are all painfully familiar with modern failed utopias but it doesn’t follow that Cathlicism yearns for a Golden Age of the past (e.g. an agrarian society).

I’m not sure what “Catholic concept of social progress” you are referring to, nor do I think that the only alternative to belief in social progress is yearning for some Golden Age of the past. The real distinction is made between the city of God an the city of man. The way one measures progress in/towards building the city of God is often quite different from how one measures progress in/towards developing the city of man. That is the real issue.

So are you saying here that there is no Catholic concept of social progress on earth? Is that what Benedict teaches in the encyclicals you quoted? One of the the interesting attributes of Catholicism is the idea of theological progress, that the Church teaches things today that were unrealized by the apostles, much less by the pre-Christian Jews. The most obvoius example of Christian social progress is the abolition of slavery.

I think we might confuse things by introducing development of doctrine into the conversation of social progress, though I see where you are going with that remark.

For Catholic Christians, social progress on earth is really not the most important objective, as it seems to be for the secular progressive. A few excerpts from Faith and the Future on this topic:

“The man of today looks towards the future. His slogan is ‘Progress,’ not ‘Tradition’; ‘Hope,’ not ‘Faith.’ He is moved, it is true, by a certain romanticism about the past. He delights in surrounding himself with precious things of history, but all of this serves only to confirm that these times are past, and that the empire of the man of today is tomorrow, the world he himself is going to build. For that to which he looks forward is not, as in the early Church, the kingdom of God, but the kingdom of man, not the return of the Son of Man, but the final victory of a rational, free, and brotherly order among men who have discovered themselves…Thus for the man of today hope no longer means looking for things over which we have no control, but action by our own power. Man expects redemption to come from himself, and he seems to be in a position to provide it.” (pages 81-2)

“It would be far too simple to take out the wooden mallet of the theologian at this point, and say: let us, then, be saved from technology, not by technology; let us find hope through faith and not against faith…The Christian God came not as a deus ex machina to set everything externally in order, but as the Son of Man in order interiorly to share in the passion of mankind. And this too is precisely the task of the Christian: to share in the passion of mankind from within, to extend the sphere of human beings so that it will find room for the presence of God.” (page 86)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not sure what “Catholic concept of social progress” you are referring to…

This is really one of the things I’m trying to figure out. Is there one? And, if so, what is it’s nature as distinct from the modern secular views?

…nor do I think that the only alternative to belief in social progress is yearning for some Golden Age of the past. The real distinction is made between the city of God an the city of man. The way one measures progress in/towards building the city of God is often quite different from how one measures progress in/towards developing the city of man. That is the real issue.

So another way to pose the question is whether or to what extent the building of the City of God occurs on earth, as opposed to our simply seeking salvation individually in hope of a heavenly City of God. We are all familiar with the concept of individual redemption, but does Catholicism have a concept of social redemption apart from that? I’ve heard of it informally in many contexts but never tracked it down precisely.

I think we might confuse things by introducing development of doctrine into the conversation of social progress, though I see where you are going with that remark.

But if there is progress in doctrine then that would suggest that progress is possible. There remains the issue of realizing doctrine, i.e. people living Christian lives in view of the progress in doctrine.

For Catholic Christians, social progress on earth is really not the most important objective, as it seems to be for the secular progressive. A few excerpts from Faith and the Future on this topic:

But Benedict seems here to be distinguishing not statis and progress but Christianity and secular progressivism (i.e. man’s redemption of himself). What’s left unsaid is whether there is a role for a Church-led social progress.

That is something very clearly implied by the book I cited in the OP. The pre-Counter-Reformation Church was animated by a faith in progress and the future of mankind, not simply in salvation in a decadant world. Is the author off-base? Or has this issue become too muddied by secular progressivism?

 

[Rach620]

This is really one of the things I’m trying to figure out. Is there one? And, if so, what is it’s nature as distinct from the modern secular views?

I would think that the only way to begin to figure this out would be to state the modern, secular view on social progress and then ask if Catholic thought on the matter is in agreement with or different from the secular view. There is overlap and there are distinct differences. The beginning of the explanation is that while earthly, modern, secular “social progress” strives for bettering this world (for this world’s sake alone), Catholic “social progress”–the progress of the Church as a ‘pilgrim fellowship of faith’–is focused on bettering ourselves and our world so that God’s reign can take hold in our own.

So another way to pose the question is whether or to what extent the building of the City of God occurs on earth, as opposed to our simply seeking salvation individually in hope of a heavenly City of God. We are all familiar with the concept of individual redemption, but does Catholicism have a concept of social redemption apart from that? I’ve heard of it informally in many contexts but never tracked it down precisely.

Yes, Catholicism is distinct from much of Protestant Christianity in that our view of salvation is NOT strictly limited to individual salvation. We are saved as a Church, as a People of God, as ONE Bride, ONE Body. The Trinity is a communion of Love, not one individual person seeking after individual people. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus really reinforces the concept of social redemption, of the redemption of the mystical Body of Christ. We are not saved as rogue members, lone individual Christians wandering around the world; we ARE saved through communion with Christ’s body.

Many 20th century theologians wrote with a keen focus on this “social redemption” aspect you’re talking about here. Henri de Lubac’s Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man comes to mind in particular. Also, Pope Benedict XVI, along with Hans Urs Von Balthasar, founded a journal in the 1970s called Communio which has also discussed this topic at length. And you will of course find this idea highlighted throughout Benedict’s and John Paul’s writings–if you’re looking for it! To be clear, this is not a new concept at all, but these are the best resources I can point you towards to learn more.

But if there is progress in doctrine then that would suggest that progress is possible. There remains the issue of realizing doctrine, i.e. people living Christian lives in view of the progress in doctrine.

Earlier I was not saying that the Church teaches that progress in general is impossible. Moral progress–growth in virtue and turning away from sin as we are strengthened in our relationship with Christ–is central to Christian faith. Development of doctrine is not that the doctrine changes over time, but that we come to a greater, deeper understanding of a truth that already exists and has already been revealed.

But these concepts are not easily translated to the social/political realm. It’s possible, and indeed necessary, for an individual to morally progress if we have any hope for a peaceful society. Modern progressive political philosophies don’t include the idea of individual citizens’ moral progress, from what I have read. Instead, they look at a collective, or in some cases a generalized ‘spirit’ of the nation, and seek to foster the progress of an abstract entity, and measure that progress by a material measuring-stick.

 

[Rach620]

cont…

But Benedict seems here to be distinguishing not statis and progress but Christianity and secular progressivism (i.e. man’s redemption of himself). What’s left unsaid is whether there is a role for a Church-led social progress.

That is something very clearly implied by the book I cited in the OP. The pre-Counter-Reformation Church was animated by a faith in progress and the future of mankind, not simply in salvation in a decadant world. Is the author off-base? Or has this issue become too muddied by secular progressivism?

I think that the confusion might be in adopting the “social progress” term as it seems that the author has. In Catholic social teaching, and in particular in Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate, the term most often used, and the one that I think you and the author of that book might be after, is authentic/integral human development. This encyclical echoes and expands upon Pope Paul VI’s Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. It is clear from Catholic social teaching that the Church and people of faith have the responsibility to foster authentic human development, to seek after the good of all citizens.

Here is how Pope Benedict begins to define integral human development in Caritas in Veritate:

Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. (para. 9)

Sorry for the long posts. Great discussion!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would think that the only way to begin to figure this out would be to state the modern, secular view on social progress and then ask if Catholic thought on the matter is in agreement with or different from the secular view.

Let’s set this question aside for the moment and concentrate first on the term you intruduced in the second part: “human development”.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus really reinforces the concept of social redemption, of the redemption of the mystical Body of Christ. We are not saved as rogue members, lone individual Christians wandering around the world; we ARE saved through communion with Christ’s body.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

This still implies that individual salvation is the focus, albeit that placing the Church in an integral position. It doesn’t convey the progress of the Church, itself, even in the limited doctrinal sense.

Many 20th century theologians wrote with a keen focus on this “social redemption” aspect you’re talking about here. Henri de Lubac’s Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man comes to mind in particular. Also, Pope Benedict XVI, along with Hans Urs Von Balthasar, founded a journal in the 1970s called Communio which has also discussed this topic at length. And you will of course find this idea highlighted throughout Benedict’s and John Paul’s writings–if you’re looking for it! To be clear, this is not a new concept at all, but these are the best resources I can point you towards to learn more.

Would you recommend these instead of the previously cited works or in addition to them? (In other words, do the previous citations address “human development”?)

It’s certainly not my notion that these are new ideas. According to the book/author cited in the OP, Catholicism led a unique cultural revolution prior to the Reformation that gave us the essential elements of western civilization. (Again, setting aside for the moment what Protestants and secularists did with that.)

Earlier I was not saying that the Church teaches that progress in general is impossible. Moral progress–growth in virtue and turning away from sin as we are strengthened in our relationship with Christ–is central to Christian faith. Development of doctrine is not that the doctrine changes over time, but that we come to a greater, deeper understanding of a truth that already exists and has already been revealed.

Right, this is the key idea within doctrinal development which the author points out as being unique to Christianity. He points out interesting contrasts with contemporaries Islam and China and predecessors Rome and Greece and even Judaism.

But these concepts are not easily translated to the social/political realm. It’s possible, and indeed necessary, for an individual to morally progress if we have any hope for a peaceful society. Modern progressive political philosophies don’t include the idea of individual citizens’ moral progress, from what I have read. Instead, they look at a collective, or in some cases a generalized ‘spirit’ of the nation, and seek to foster the progress of an abstract entity, and measure that progress by a material measuring-stick.

I want to understand better the Catholic concept before we tackle the modern secular version. There are so many obvious problems with the later but often it is presented as the only game in town, Catholicism being but a tight grip on the dark ages.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think that the confusion might be in adopting the “social progress” term as it seems that the author has. In Catholic social teaching, and in particular in Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate, the term most often used, and the one that I think you and the author of that book might be after, is authentic/integral human development. This encyclical echoes and expands upon Pope Paul VI’s Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. It is clear from Catholic social teaching that the Church and people of faith have the responsibility to foster authentic human development, to seek after the good of all citizens.

Here is how Pope Benedict begins to define integral human development in Caritas in Veritate:

Yes, this sounds closer to what I’m looking for, although it seems a bit too reserved, more a reaction to modern social progress than a blueprint for a Christian vision of one. But perhaps I need to dive more into the details.

Where do you recommend I begin my reading in view of what we’ve discussed so far?

 

[Rach620]

This still implies that individual salvation is the focus, albeit that placing the Church in an integral position. It doesn’t convey the progress of the Church, itself, even in the limited doctrinal sense.

I really have a hard time seeing individual salvation as the focus. The formula isn’t “to be saved one must be Catholic,” but “outside the Church there is no salvation”. And again, I am confused by what you might mean by “the progress of the Church”. There is no way of understanding the “progress of the Church” as an abstract entity, apart from the progress in faith and morals of her members which enables their deepening understanding of revelation.

Would you recommend these instead of the previously cited works or in addition to them? (In other words, do the previous citations address “human development”?)

If you have time, I’d recommend reading whatever you can get your hands on on this topic

It’s certainly not my notion that these are new ideas. According to the book/author cited in the OP, Catholicism led a unique cultural revolution prior to the Reformation that gave us the essential elements of western civilization. (Again, setting aside for the moment what Protestants and secularists did with that.)

Sure, I’ve heard this argument made before in different terms (ie, without the confusing “social progress” aspect). The Church placed primary importance on reason, and reason’s relationship with revelation, long before the Enlightenment came along and busted up any comprehensive understanding of reason in human life.

Yes, this sounds closer to what I’m looking for, although it seems a bit too reserved, more a reaction to modern social progress than a blueprint for a Christian vision of one. But perhaps I need to dive more into the details.

Where do you recommend I begin my reading in view of what we’ve discussed so far?

Definitely read Caritas in Veritate. It was criticized by many, probably for not being reserved enough, and definitely provides Pope Benedict’s “blueprint” for integral human development in our time.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I really have a hard time seeing individual salvation as the focus. The formula isn’t “to be saved one must be Catholic,” but “outside the Church there is no salvation”. And again, I am confused by what you might mean by “the progress of the Church”. There is no way of understanding the “progress of the Church” as an abstract entity, apart from the progress in faith and morals of her members which enables their deepening understanding of revelation.

My formal Catholic education ended with high school and my subsequent readings have had no particular Catholic focus. Still, this is the first I’ve ever heard of this interpreation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” as anything other than “non-Catholics are going to hell” (with allowances for God’s mercy and baptism by desire and invincible ignorance). As I noted before, however, I have heard it argued that Catholicism teaches a parallel redemption of mankind but I never put the two gether. It makes sense, so this is something I want to followup on.

Sure, I’ve heard this argument made before in different terms (ie, without the confusing “social progress” aspect). The Church placed primary importance on reason, and reason’s relationship with revelation, long before the Enlightenment came along and busted up any comprehensive understanding of reason in human life.

So I am still also interested in the relationship between progress in faith and morals and progress in “secular” fields of science, culture, and economics. I know the Church does not draw a bring line between them but much of what I read (even some of your quotes) seem very standoffish as if the Church were trying to assurre everyone that it was keeping ot the Peace of Westphalia.

Definitely read Caritas in Veritate. It was criticized by many, probably for not being reserved enough, and definitely provides Pope Benedict’s “blueprint” for integral human development in our time.

Thanks, I’ll start there.

 

[MarkInOregon]

So are you saying here that there is no Catholic concept of social progress on earth? Is that what Benedict teaches in the encyclicals you quoted? One of the the interesting attributes of Catholicism is the idea of theological progress, that the Church teaches things today that were unrealized by the apostles, much less by the pre-Christian Jews. The most obvoius example of Christian social progress is the abolition of slavery.

I am not sure you can use the abolition of slavery as an example of “Christian social progress” I am not sure the Church ever taught that slavery was o.k. I am not where I can check, but it seems that the position was more of not interfering(sp) in secular government affairs and saying–if you find yourself a slave be the best slave you can be to honor God. But that a Christian should enslave another…I’m not sure that was ever taught or really approved of–now individual Christians might say and do things but that cannot and should not be confused with actual Church teaching.

The example seems to be more of people coming to act in keeping with their professed beliefs…than of those beliefs changing.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not sure you can use the abolition of slavery as an example of “Christian social progress” I am not sure the Church ever taught that slavery was o.k. I am not where I can check, but it seems that the position was more of not interfering(sp) in secular government affairs and saying–if you find yourself a slave be the best slave you can be to honor God. But that a Christian should enslave another…I’m not sure that was ever taught or really approved of–now individual Christians might say and do things but that cannot and should not be confused with actual Church teaching. The example seems to be more of people coming to act in keeping with their professed beliefs…than of those beliefs changing.

Neither Jesus nor Paul spoke against slavery nor taught that it was wrong as we understand it today. (And, needless to say, the OT prescribed when and how slaves were to be taken and treated.) And I don’t think you can simply attribute this to a separation of Church and State since the owning of slaves was a personal choice, not a government policy. Paul could easily have instructed Christians to free their slaves but, instead, taught them to treat them as brothers while retaining them in bodange. So a more humane slavery but slavery nonetheless.

I’m not sure exactly when the Church began to teach that Christians must not own slaves but it was certainly in place by the time that the Spanish conquered the New World because it was a source of great friction between the Church and the Spanish. By then, at least, it was a matter of the Spaniards ignoring the teachings of the Church (and even trying to control what the Church taught to parishiners in Spanish territories).

Now we would expect that Jesus knew that it was wrong and simply chose to focus on other issues. It’s also possible that Paul and the apostles were anti-slavery but limited themselves to a more practical step of getting Christians to treat their slaves humanely. But that is conjecture on our part. It seems much more reasonable to say that the Church discovered the sinfuless of slavery through reasoning about the Gospel.