Catholic social teaching needs to be lived and understood in the Church

Building on Tom's post from yesterday, here's a link to a call for a greater appreciation and integration of Catholic social teaching in the life of the Church, posted a good bit ago over at The Western Confucian: Inculturating Catholic Social Teaching. One of the problems with the way Catholic social teaching is commonly discussed is that it almost always gets simplified along the lines of standard statist interventionism in the economy.  Catholic social teaching is far more sophisticated than that, dealing with the interplay of both state action & private property within the context of the overarching values of solidarity between people, the need to pursue the common good, and the practice of subsidiarity within levels of government. This sophisticated approach to the Catholic way of thinking about political & legal questions, grounded deeply in Thomistic thought, gets lost too much of the time. That's a real shame.

As Br. Charles over at A Minor Friar has pointed out, there's another negative consequence to misunderstanding Catholic social thought: a separation between social justice and evangelization. Catholic social teaching is part of the Church's broader message about redemption and the reconciliation between God and man brought about through Jesus Christ. Br. Charles writes:

There is a sense that we have our faith, we celebrate it at the Eucharist, and then we are called to go out into the world and work for justice. This is true as far as it goes, but I think we sometimes forget that the love of God and the Eucharist are themselves the social program par excellence. Yes, goods like a living wage, honest work, and access to health care and education are all things we should work for on behalf of those who need them, but in the end the old cliche holds: Jesus is the answer. In other words, we are good at remembering that we are called to struggle against social injustice, but because the world tells us to keep our religion to ourselves, we conveniently forget that God himself is the remedy for the ills of society.

That's exactly right.  The struggle for proper order in society must involve the preaching of the Gospel, because ultimately the only deep answer to the problems of this earthly sojourn are found in God's revelation of himself through his Son Jesus Christ.  As Christians, our concern for others is rooted in the love of God that we have been shown through Jesus Christ.  As St. John tells us, "The command we have from Christ is blunt: loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both" (1 John 4:21, The Message translation).  The reason Christians love & care for people is because of the love they have for God, a love which is itself a gift from God manifested in the Gospel. To quote St. John once again, "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19, New American Bible translation). Once that truth is obscured, work for justice becomes divorced from faith in Christ, and a meaningful commitment to Catholic social teaching becomes impossible.

A spiritual life in Christ is a necessary component to Catholic social teaching.  They are linked . And it is from the spiritual life, which comes from God and is oriented to him, that Catholic social teaching gains its power. As Bl. Oscar Romero put it:

When we struggle for human rights, for freedom, for dignity, when we feel that it is a ministry of the church to concern itself for those who are hungry, for those who have no schools, for those who are deprived, we are not departing from God’s promise. He comes to free us from sin, and the church knows that sin’s consequences are all such injustices and abuses. The church knows it is saving the world when it undertakes to speak also of such things.

¡Bl. Oscar Romero, ruega por nosotros!

Christianity, social activism and the civil rights movement

John Fea explains the links between those three topics:  The "Christian America" of Martin Luther King, Jr.  As Fea explains:

King's fight for a Christian America was not over amending the Constitution to make it more Christian or promoting crusades to insert "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (June 14, 1954). It was instead a battle against injustice and an attempt to forge a national community defined by Christian ideals of equality and respect for human dignity. Most historians now agree that the Civil Rights movement was driven by the Christian faith of its proponents. As David Chappell argued in his landmark book, Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow, the story of the Civil Rights movement is less about the triumph of progressive and liberal ideals and more about the revival of an Old Testament prophetic tradition that led African-Americans to hold their nation accountable for the decidedly unchristian behavior it showed many of its citizens.

I have read Stone of Hope & it is an insightful interpretation of the civil rights movement in the 1950s & 1960s.  Of course, by the late 60s, after the assassinations of both Malcom X & MLK, the civil rights movement largely took a turn away from its religious roots and towards "new left" secularism, a turn that left much of the movement without a spiritual core.  That in turn created one of the central tragedies of the civil rights movement -- just when its greatest victories were at hand, many of its leaders & activists abandoned a key component of what had been the movement's identity, the integration of faith & public policy when it came to questions of human rights & dignity.

In the increasingly secular environment in the United States it can never be said enough that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision was a profoundly religious one -- and not just religious but Christian. His activism was grounded not in ideology but in faith, not in a secularism devoid of moral intuition but in a Christianity that inspired moral imagination.  King dreamed of world where the dignity of each person was respected because he believed in a God of love who had suffered, died & rose again so that each human being might have life, and have it more abundantly.  For those of us who are people of faith, we should never forget or be silent about that vision.

Five for Friday 1

#1: Richard Rodriguez on Pope Francis & "the new atheism."

The self-identified Catholic gay Latino sometimes-conservative sometimes-liberal writer has a strong take on the "new atheist" movement, identifying its basic approach as a species of intellectual bullying: Richard Rodriguez: "New Atheism" has a distinctly neo-colonial aspect.

Read the entire interview, and not just for Rodriguez's insights about the "new atheist" crowd. There's lots of wisdom there -- about the nature of Latino identity in the United States, affirmative action, and the desert nature of the three main monotheistic religions. He has some very interesting comments about the Catholic Church and Pope Francis, and much of the Left's obsession with sexual issues. Rodriguez, unfortunately, falls into the trap of viewing Pope Francis as being outside of continuity with his predecessors, but perhaps such an interesting and unorthodox thinker can be forgiven for falling a bit for some of the MSM spin about the Pope?

#2:  the influence of John Locke on Catholic social teaching.

Joe Hargrave explores that topic in this piece, detailing the use of Locke in the formulation of Catholic teaching regarding private property. While Pope Francis' words in Evangelii Gaudium have gotten a great deal of attention since the publication of that apostolic exhortation, that work does not modify any of the principles of Catholic social teaching as it stands. And as Hargrave explains, that social teaching has powerful roots in the work of John Locke.

#3: human dignity & the problem of the post-work economy.

Mark Steyn addresses that topic in this piece archived over at National Review Online: The Post-Work Economy. As Steyn notes, one of the most socially-disruptive aspects of unemployment is the effect dependency has on human dignity and the sense of self-sufficiency that is a prime aspect of human well-being. This effects not only economic standing, but also the health & psychological vitality of the people affected by being on the dole. Complicating this is an approach to governing that views dependency as a here-to-stay fixture of American civic & economic life. As Steyn writes:

The assumption is that mass, multi-generational dependency is now a permanent feature of life. A coastal elite will devise ever smarter and slicker trinkets, and pretty much everyone else will be a member of either the dependency class or the vast bureaucracy that ministers to them. And, if you’re wondering why every Big Government program assumes you’re a feeble child, that’s because a citizenry without “work and purpose” is ultimately incompatible with liberty. The elites think a smart society will be wealthy enough to relieve the masses from the need to work. In reality, it would be neo-feudal, but with fatter, sicker peasants. It wouldn’t just be “economic inequality,” but a far more profound kind, and seething with resentments.

There is dignity in work and such dignity is necessary for human beings to flourish. Government policy should be oriented towards creating conditions that foster human flourishing, rather than putting roadblocks in the way towards people having the ability & incentive to be self-supporting citizens.

#4: the Founders & classical education -- it wasn't about Latin, it was about virtue. 

To a degree difficult for many modern Americans to grasp, the Founding generation was shaped by classical literature from ancient Greece & Rome.  Virtually every literate person had at least passing acquaintance with the stories, myths & literature of the ancient West, and a surprisingly large percentage of Americans could read those works in one or both of their original languages, Greek & Latin. Yet, classical education in colonial and early republican America wasn't primarily about learning ancient languages, it was about training people in virtue & civic responsibility. E. Christian Kopff explores this aspect of early American education over at The Imaginative Conservative:  Inspired by Liberty & Virtue: the Classical Education of the Founders of the American Republic. Tolle, lege.

#5: what Abraham Lincoln can teach conservatives. 

Over at City Journal online, Jeremy Rozansky sketches out some thoughts on that topic: Honest Abe's Advice to Conservatives. Lincoln was no ideologue, but rather embraced a multi-faceted approach to politics that emphasized the need for balance between economic growth & innovation and the requirements of civil order & settled polity. As Rozansky writes, this is something from which Republicans of a conservative bent could learn:

Too often, Republicans have talked and acted as if the essence of conservatism is making budgets balance. It isn’t. American conservatism holds fast to a constellation of virtues: liberty, industriousness, and temperance, among others. Conservatives must emphasize these, and Lincoln provides unmatched instruction in how and why to do so. We should be wary of overemphasizing the pursuit of economic growth, or, as [writer Rich] Lowry calls it, the ethic of “work, work, work.” Growth is unsettling for many. The challenge is to formulate an economic agenda that balances innovation with social cohesion. If conservatives talk only about “opportunity,” they will overlook Americans’ other vital concerns about stability and everyday satisfaction. A conservatism that fails to speak to these sentiments won’t win—and won’t deserve to. Perhaps Lincoln can be of instruction here, too.

Bonus: some 80s music to get the weekend started!