Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[Corki]

So many Catholics I know seem to think that certain social doctrine is irrelevant. That’s why they sing praises of Humanae vitae, but pretend Populorum progressio doesn’t exist, and come up with the most backwards excuses to twist the meaning of Rerum novarum. Why are so many Catholics otherwise totally faithful but social teaching is suddenly a free-for-all?

Humanae Vitae is not in the same category of those other documents. HV lays out absolutes - abortion and contraception are moral evils.

Most of the remainder of Catholic social doctrine is more framework with a lot of room for discussion on the “how”. Example, we must welcome the immigrant - absolutely. But Church doctrine also provides that a country has the right to protect it’s borders. So **how **do we, as Catholics, fulfill both of those teachings. Having a difference of opinon on the “how” is not the same as ignoring the doctrine.

 

[St_Francis]

So many Catholics I know seem to think that certain social doctrine is irrelevant. That’s why they sing praises of Humanae vitae, but pretend Populorum progressio doesn’t exist, and come up with the most backwards excuses to twist the meaning of Rerum novarum. Why are so many Catholics otherwise totally faithful but social teaching is suddenly a free-for-all?

Conservatives believe that it is not the government who should take care of those in need but private citizens. Liberals believe the government should take care of the poor.

Their patterns of charitable giving reflect this: conservatives tend to give more money to charity, donate more blood, and volunteer more than do liberals.

We must accept the teaching that we as individuals must help the poor and that the government is responsible for helping in this and ensuring it is possible. The specifics of how it is to be done is left to the prudential judgement of the people. Moreover, the welfare state which disincentivizes people from productive working is also decried, and this part of social justice teaching is often ignored by the other party.

Both points of view ignore the social justice teachings of ease of going into business for oneself, preferring instead to focus on the apparent efficiency of large corporations.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Both points of view ignore the social justice teachings of ease of going into business for oneself, preferring instead to focus on the apparent efficiency of large corporations.

Not true. One position is in favor of reducing taxes to business in general, and also reducing unnecessary restrictions on businesses through agencies such as the EPA, DOE, etc. Small businesses are being crushed by taxes and regulations, and this side wants to give ALL businesses relief, as well as attract business to the US from other countries, and back from other countries to the US.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

If only everyone’s time could be better utilized to reading ecclesiastical documents such as Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Populorum Progressio, Centesimus Annus, et al. Genuinely puzzling many practicing Catholics have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but are not even acquainted with the Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church…

 

[PenitentGrace]

Social doctrine, at least what you seem to have in mind, can be disagreed upon by Catholics in good conscience. This is not an ex cathedra issue upon which we all must agree. There is room for disagreement.

I have heard opposite things on this board. And it is confusing. There was a recent discussion about the infallibility of different texts. Some people were arguing that if something is not “infallible or said ex cathedra” then you can disagree with it. But apparently a LOT of things we are required to believe has never been said ex cathedra- such as I believe, the Trinity (correction please, if I am wrong.)

It has been explained to me here on this board that we are supposed to follow ALL Church Teachings even if they are not infallible- that means even the disciplines and even what the Church says about Social Doctrine. Even if we disagree we are supposed to do it out of obedience because even if the Church teaches something that is not infallible- it is still authoritative and should be respected and obeyed.

As a more liberal minded person it is very difficult for me to accept some of the Church’s teachings but I really am striving to understand them and to obey them. However, when politically conservative catholics say “Oh, that wasn’t said ex cathedra so we can disagree” it confuses me because it seems like the same people are also saying we have to agree on other things that were not ex cathedra as well. Why are we only allowed to disagree when it comes to sharing our wealth with others. If we truly put God first why are we so concerned that some people are getting “hand outs.” I do understand the technical difference between giving voluntarily and having a government take money from you. But Jesus constantly preached about not being attached to money. If you are truly not attached (which I know is INCREDIBLY hard not to be- I am the same way) I would think you wouldn’t mind whether you were giving money to Church, to the homeless guy on the street, or as part of your taxes. And the Church supports this in its Social Doctrine- so why is it okay to disagree? I don’t mean to offend. Just genuinely confused.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I have heard opposite things on this board. And it is confusing. There was a recent discussion about the infallibility of different texts. Some people were arguing that if something is not “infallible or said ex cathedra” then you can disagree with it. But apparently a LOT of things we are required to believe has never been said ex cathedra- such as I believe, the Trinity (correction please, if I am wrong.)

It has been explained to me here on this board that we are supposed to follow ALL Church Teachings even if they are not infallible- that means even the disciplines and even what the Church says about Social Doctrine.

Catholic Social Doctrine describes WHAT we must do for the poor. It does not describe HOW we are to do it. The difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ (I cringe at these generalizations) is in the HOW. The HOW is not doctrine, and disagreement can exist without either side being able to accuse the other of not following Church teaching.

 

[someperson555]

because sadly many american catholics are petty materialists. im sorry to say that but thats what im seeing. they are only catholic because its a part of their conservative culture. they are conservatives first and catholic second.

its hypocritical, thats why i dont associate myself with these catholic movements, since they are basically just a propaganda tool for the republican party.

 

[someperson555]

Catholic Social Doctrine describes WHAT we must do for the poor. It does not describe HOW we are to do it. The difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ (I cringe at these generalizations) is in the HOW. The HOW is not doctrine, and disagreement can exist without either side being able to accuse the other of not following Church teaching.

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were “obscene wealth” and “environmental pollution”. here is the entire list:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88085760

second, it doesnt take a genius to see that the current capitalist system has FAILED to accomplish social justice. therefore we need a new system. an individual DOESNT have a right to own a natural resource. an individual DOESNT have a right to put chemicals into his food supply to make it more tasty and addictive. therefore the state has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to control the economy. notice i say CONTROL not own. private enterprise is fine, but the state needs to be there like a referee at a soccer game to make sure everyone is playing fair.

 

[St_Francis]

Not true. One position is in favor of reducing taxes to business in general, and also reducing unnecessary restrictions on businesses through agencies such as the EPA, DOE, etc. Small businesses are being crushed by taxes and regulations, and this side wants to give ALL businesses relief, as well as attract business to the US from other countries, and back from other countries to the US.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of this wrt the smallest of businesses, mostly just tax reductions and things which very large corporations lobby for.

 

[St_Francis]

Penitent Grace,
Encyclicals are not in and of themselves infallable declarations, but often the information in them *is. *Take Humanae Vitae: the encyclical described the perrenial teaching of the Church against abc. The Church has always taught abc is wrong–that is infallable because it is a perrenial teaching, not because it is in HV. All HV did, wrt infallable teaching, is to reiterate the already infallable teaching against abc and clarify that the Pill was abc and thus fell under that prohibition.

I have some more information about this which I will try to get back to you with.

I have heard opposite things on this board. And it is confusing. There was a recent discussion about the infallibility of different texts. Some people were arguing that if something is not “infallible or said ex cathedra” then you can disagree with it. But apparently a LOT of things we are required to believe has never been said ex cathedra- such as I believe, the Trinity (correction please, if I am wrong.)

It has been explained to me here on this board that we are supposed to follow ALL Church Teachings even if they are not infallible- that means even the disciplines and even what the Church says about Social Doctrine. Even if we disagree we are supposed to do it out of obedience because even if the Church teaches something that is not infallible- it is still authoritative and should be respected and obeyed.

As a more liberal minded person it is very difficult for me to accept some of the Church’s teachings but I really am striving to understand them and to obey them. However, when politically conservative catholics say “Oh, that wasn’t said ex cathedra so we can disagree” it confuses me because it seems like the same people are also saying we have to agree on other things that were not ex cathedra as well. Why are we only allowed to disagree when it comes to sharing our wealth with others. If we truly put God first why are we so concerned that some people are getting “hand outs.” I do understand the technical difference between giving voluntarily and having a government take money from you. But Jesus constantly preached about not being attached to money. If you are truly not attached (which I know is INCREDIBLY hard not to be- I am the same way) I would think you wouldn’t mind whether you were giving money to Church, to the homeless guy on the street, or as part of your taxes. And the Church supports this in its Social Doctrine- so why is it okay to disagree? I don’t mean to offend. Just genuinely confused.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Social doctrine, at least what you seem to have in mind, can be disagreed upon by Catholics in good conscience. This is not an ex cathedra issue upon which we all must agree. There is room for disagreement.

While the practical application of Catholic social teaching is a prudential judgment open to discussion, Catholics cannot deviate from the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching (i.e., the common good, the dignity of man, just remuneration of work, private property, solidarity & collaboration, subsidiarity, etc.)

As Pope Leo XIII said: "If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience. "

Carefully note Pope Leo XIII never denies papal competency of teaching authoritatively in the moral dimension of economic matters? He merely acknowledges the Church is not entrusted to provide [the practical application of] concrete solutions on the subject (cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 68).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I have heard opposite things on this board. And it is confusing. There was a recent discussion about the infallibility of different texts. Some people were arguing that if something is not “infallible or said ex cathedra” then you can disagree with it. But apparently a LOT of things we are required to believe has never been said ex cathedra- such as I believe, the Trinity (correction please, if I am wrong.)

It has been explained to me here on this board that we are supposed to follow ALL Church Teachings even if they are not infallible- that means even the disciplines and even what the Church says about Social Doctrine. Even if we disagree we are supposed to do it out of obedience because even if the Church teaches something that is not infallible- it is still authoritative and should be respected and obeyed.

As a more liberal minded person it is very difficult for me to accept some of the Church’s teachings but I really am striving to understand them and to obey them. However, when politically conservative catholics say “Oh, that wasn’t said ex cathedra so we can disagree” it confuses me because it seems like the same people are also saying we have to agree on other things that were not ex cathedra as well. Why are we only allowed to disagree when it comes to sharing our wealth with others. If we truly put God first why are we so concerned that some people are getting “hand outs.” I do understand the technical difference between giving voluntarily and having a government take money from you. But Jesus constantly preached about not being attached to money. If you are truly not attached (which I know is INCREDIBLY hard not to be- I am the same way) I would think you wouldn’t mind whether you were giving money to Church, to the homeless guy on the street, or as part of your taxes. And the Church supports this in its Social Doctrine- so why is it okay to disagree? I don’t mean to offend. Just genuinely confused.

Catholics are still obligated to give faithful assent to the non-definitive teachings of the Ordinary [Authentic] Magisterium: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 752).

 

[CesarAugustus]

The influence of materialism and post French Revolution ideologies goes both ways, right and left. For example, philosophies influenced by Hegel.

Maybe it has do with environment, or/and the easy acceptance of some Doctrines over others. Or the influence of political parties, they know how to attract people with some topics and to left out some issues.

Blessings!



P.S. Distributism, in my opinion, is one of the best options.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were “obscene wealth” and “environmental pollution”. here is the entire list:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88085760

second, it doesnt take a genius to see that the current capitalist system has FAILED to accomplish social justice. therefore we need a new system. an individual DOESNT have a right to own a natural resource. an individual DOESNT have a right to put chemicals into his food supply to make it more tasty and addictive. therefore the state has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to control the economy. notice i say CONTROL not own. private enterprise is fine, but the state needs to be there like a referee at a soccer game to make sure everyone is playing fair.

Where are the Catholic guidelines for implementing distributism? From an authoritive source, please. I know that the proponents of distributism claim that they developed the theory based on Catholic doctrine, but I have not seen any official Catholic Church teaching that it is the only licit economic system, nor guidance on how to introduce it into the world today. Those are the necessary HOW questions that must be answered for something to move from simply an ‘idea’, to something that is possible.

Secondly, I do not support obscene wealth and true environmental pollution. Those are not requirements in any economic system, including capitalism.

Saying capitalism system has failed to accomplish social justice is like saying getting up out of bed in the morning has failed to accomplish social justice. Sins against social justice are caused by people, independent of the economic system that exists.

And finally, you are duplicitous. You seem to support distributism, but then you suggest support for two things that are in opposition to distributism. You say no individual has a right to own a natural resource, but distributism holds land ownership as a critical right, land being our most important natural resource. Subsidiarity, a very prominent part of Church social justice doctrine, is counter to your suggestions that the state must control the economy. Unless you mean the economy of a close neighborhood.

 

[Ender]

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were “obscene wealth” and “environmental pollution”.

If the Church is giving guidelines then by the meaning of the word she is not specifying means. Opposition to “obscene wealth” and pollution hardly constitutes a road map of actions to take to resolve those issues. That’s the entire point here: the Church specifies the ends but leaves the determination of the means to the layman. As Dan Grelinger said, she does not give us the HOW.

There is no question about whether the Church has to say something infallibly for it to be obeyed: we owe assent to ordinary teachings as well … which is interesting but irrelevant given that the Church has no teachings on things like whether the minimum wage should be increased or eliminated, whether a border fence should or should not be built, or whether a government run health care system is or is not a moral obligation.

As several others have said, political disagreements are about how to help society, not whether or not we should. The premise of the OP is invalid. There is no dispute about our obligation to help the poor and the sick but there is surely an entirely valid disagreement over what steps should be taken to satisfy that obligation.

Ender

 

[PenitentGrace]

Catholic Social Doctrine describes WHAT we must do for the poor. It does not describe HOW we are to do it. The difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ (I cringe at these generalizations) is in the HOW. The HOW is not doctrine, and disagreement can exist without either side being able to accuse the other of not following Church teaching.

Thanks for the clarification! If that is true (and I only say “if” because someperson555 disagrees and since I haven’t researched this, I want to give you both the benefit of the doubt.) then I think it is just a problem with the rhetoric people are using. If there is merely some disagreement about the way to implement social doctrines- then there is no reason for anyone bring up the fact that social doctrine is not infallible or “not ex cathedra” as Smndtupidisaftr was saying (sorry to single you out Smndtupidisaftr, but it was this argument that confused me.) If it is truly the “how” that people are disagreeing about then no one is actually in disagreement with the doctrines in the first place. Therefore, whether or not the doctrine is ex cathedra or infallible shouldn’t even come into play as an argument- not that it ever should anyway. I think using the infallibility argument is what causes the greatest confusion and makes the discussion unravel into accusations of cafeteria catholicism.

Encyclicals are not in and of themselves infallable declarations, but often the information in them is. Take Humanae Vitae: the encyclical described the perrenial teaching of the Church against abc. The Church has always taught abc is wrong–that is infallable because it is a perrenial teaching, not because it is in HV. All HV did, wrt infallable teaching, is to reiterate the already infallable teaching against abc and clarify that the Pill was abc and thus fell under that prohibition.

I have some more information about this which I will try to get back to you with.

Thanks St. Francis!

 

[TEPO]

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were “obscene wealth” and “environmental pollution”. here is the entire list:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88085760

second, it doesnt take a genius to see that the current capitalist system has FAILED to accomplish social justice. therefore we need a new system. an individual DOESNT have a right to own a natural resource. an individual DOESNT have a right to put chemicals into his food supply to make it more tasty and addictive. therefore the state has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to control the economy. notice i say CONTROL not own. private enterprise is fine, but the state needs to be there like a referee at a soccer game to make sure everyone is playing fair.

Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics. There is no Church position.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics. There is no Church position.

Do you mean distribution or distributism?

 

[TEPO]

Do you mean distribution or distributism?

Oh, good catch. I meant Distributism, which is something I’m opposed to.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Oh, good catch. I meant Distributism, which is something I’m opposed to.

Noted, but where has the Church condemned Distributism?