Looking forward to second meeting

Just a few thoughts about the next meeting (1 October)....


I talked last week about the various different aspects or levels of human life in society:

International

      ↑

   State

      ↑

Civil society

      ↑

  Family

     ↑

Individual

This coming week we'll focus on that foundation of the individual.

One common narrative about how society and culture has changed in the West over history is that there was a 'subjective turn' in the early modern period. On this account, modernity is characterized in part by starting from the 'inner' perspective of the individual. Perhaps the most striking example of this would be in the work of the philosopher, Descartes (1596-1650), who tried to achieve certain knowledge of the external world on the basis of the certainty of our own thought: 'I think, therefore I am.' In general, it might be argued that modernity is characterized by an (over?) emphasis on the individual: my rights; what I want.

From this perspective, some Catholic social teaching can be seen as trying to provide a corrective to this emphasis on the individual and a reminder that we live in relationships with others. On the other hand, other aspects of social teaching are a warning against the sort of collectivization characteristic of twentieth century Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, and in favour of individuals and their freedom.

Moving on to post modernity, one aspect of this period has been a suspicion of the very idea of the individual. One area this can be seen is in the idea of the 'death of the author': literary texts are no longer to be seen as the intentional communicative creation of an individual, but rather as creations which reflect impersonal social or cultural forces.

The aim of Catholic social teaching on the individual might therefore be seen as trying to do justice to the reality and value of the individual against those movements which try to undermine it in favour of collective entities such as the state or the economy. On the other hand, Catholic teaching also warns against views which reduce reality simply to the individual's perspective or will: individuals exist within a reality they have to take account of, in particular, a reality consisting both of other human beings, but also of God and nature.

If you're interested, it might be worth reading an article by Cardinal Avery Dulles on St John Paul II's personalism which brings out both the importance of the individual but also the need for the individual to reflect and live within the truth of nature and God (link here).

See you Wednesday!

Reflections on the first meeting

Good to meet you last night! As promised I've put up a hyperlinked copy of the handout: you'll find it (and future handouts as we go through the weeks) on the handouts link on the right hand sidebar.

As I said, I'm very happy to continue any discussions in the comment boxes here. It's funny how, when actually presenting a class, issues can take on a different shape from how you expected them to be: I've said in the past that sometimes I've only understood a subject after I taught it (and not even then!!). A couple of issues that stuck out for me after the class were:

a) Authority. The Catholic Church often looks to outsiders terribly authoritarian with long lists of does and don'ts that have to be obeyed or else. (On a personal note, I'd have to say that I've found it entirely an opposite experience: liberating rather than stifling -but that's perhaps something for another day.) As far as Catholic social teaching is concerned, it's clear that it's meant to be helpful rather than constricting: if we're going to live the best lives we can, then we should be thinking about the things we find in the teaching. To do that wisely, we need to understand it, particularly the reasons for it, and that involves the sort of critical engagement we're going to be attempting over this course.

b) Modernity. I suggested that one way of thinking about Catholic social teaching as it's developed since the Encyclical Rerum Novarum (summary and link at bottom of the screen here) is that it is the application of traditional Catholic principles to the new circumstances of modernity (and post-modernity). Now both of these are highly complex and disputed terms which rest on the claim that there is something qualititatively different about (modern) society now from (pre-modern) society in the past -and, arguably, that (post-modern) society now is different from (modern) society (say) before the 1960s. To be honest, I'm genuinely not sure what I think about such a claim! On the one hand, the human condition seems perennial: we can understand the lives of (say) the people around Jesus as having the same qualities as our own. (We are born, live and die. We love. We grieve etc.) On the other hand, features such as industrialization and the possibility of quick movement of goods and finance around the world have changed our lives.  Our expectations of Catholic social teaching may alter depending on how radical a break we see between our lives and those of previous generations. If, for example, we think there has been a genuinely radical break between the modern world and the pre-modern world, we may expect there to be an equally radical change in what the Church teaches. If, on the other hand, we think there is a great deal of continuity between the human challenges faced by previous generations and our own, then we may expect a less dramatic change in that teaching.

If you want to think about what modernity and post modernity might involve, you could try reading the Wikipedia articles on modernity (link here) and post-modernity (link here).

Initial reflections for Week One

Before we meet for the first time this Wednesday, I thought I'd try and do a brief sketch of how I see the course and its progress over the ten weeks.

One background assumption is that the course is going to emphasize intellectual exploration. That's worth highlighting because much exploration of Catholic social teaching has a practical orientation: roughly, once you've been sensitized to some key principles of the teaching, the main aim is to put those principles into action. Although I'd hope that what we do on the course may well have some effects on how we act in the future, any such practical effects will be the indirect consequence of an improved understanding.

Now I could leave it there merely as an assumption, but let me try to defend it as an approach. There are many things I could say here. I could point to the Church's (and particularly the Dominicans') long tradition of academic study. I could point to the Albertus Institute's own founding principle as aiming to provide

'...a forum to encourage an open dialogue between science, religion and other forms of intellectual discipline. It also offers opportunities for Christians and, in particular, members of the Catholic Church to enter public debate on these matters.' [My emphasis]

Perhaps a more fundamental way of defending the approach is in thinking about the importance of wisdom in Catholicism. In the process of sanctification (ie trying to make ourselves as close to God as possible) the development of wisdom is an important element. That doesn't mean necessarily academic study for everyone, but, given the conditions of a modern society, it will do for large numbers of people. So intellectual exploration of important issues is going to be a part of growing closer to God.

A second background assumption is that Catholic social teaching is important because it concerns almost everything about human nature. One of the worries I have about some popular presentations of Catholic social teaching is that they tend to isolate and restrict it. For example, you'll often read that it started in 1891 with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum. You may even get the impression that it simply concerns giving aid to developing countries. But Catholic social teaching (insofar as it means 'teaching on human beings and society') goes back to Scripture and uses political philosophy that goes back to Plato and Aristotle as developed over the 2000 years of the Church's history. One of the things I'll be trying to do on the course is to reconnect some of the more recent teachings on social issues with this older inheritance and thereby to understand it better.

A third -and final- assumption results from me and my background. My academic training is predominantly in philosophy and ancient Greek political and moral philosophy. That background undoubtedly affects how I see (and will teach) this course. First, as a philosopher, I'm more interested in exploring and arguing about the ideas than in providing clear cut answers. Given the wide nature of the subject matter I emphasized in the second assumption above, I'd expect us to emerge at the other end with a deeper understanding of some key points, but perhaps in some ways even more confused than we were at the beginning! That'd be a good thing: these are often complex issues and a bit of humility about our understanding of them is a key part of wisdom. Secondly, as a philosopher who specializes in Ancient Greek philosophy, I suspect I'm often going to go back to Plato and Aristotle in particular, as well as to how that tradition was developed in Catholic thinkers such as Aquinas. I'd give two justifications for that particular approach. The first is broadly pragmatic. There are any number of approaches you might take to Catholic social teaching. You might, for example, compare it with English language political philosophy such as that of Locke or Hobbes. You might compare it with modern neo-liberal thinkers such as Hayek or Nozick. (And I'm sure sure some of this will happen in the course!) But since Classical political philosophy is still regarded as an important source for political thinking, it is perfectly reasonable to take an approach which puts that approach and Catholic social teaching into dialogue -and it just so happens that this happens to be the sort of thing that I happen to have the background to do! The second justification rests on the way Classical Greek philosophy has been central to the Catholic intellectual tradition. St Thomas Aquinas has regularly been offered as a model for Catholic thinking -and it is impossible to understand Aquinas without reference to the background of Platonism and Aristotelianism from which he developed much of his theology and philosophy. Moreover, as Pope Benedict argued in his Regensburg address:


I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος [logos] ". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω [sun logo] , with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

To summarize:

a) The course is going to emphasize deepening our understanding of Catholic social teaching rather than providing a recipe for practical action.
b) There's going to be a strong emphasis on developing that understanding through the philosophical and theological tradition of the Church, and through the roots of that tradition in Classical Greek philosophy.


Further reading:

You might find the following helpful:

a) St John Paul II's Encyclical on the relationship between philosophy and faith: Fides et ratio. Link.

b) Pope Benedict lecture on the place of reason and Greek thought in understanding God: the Regensburg address. Link.

c) Stanford Encyclopedia article on St Thomas Aquinas: Link.

Course now full

Just received news that we've filled the course. Look forward to meeting those who have registered on Wednesday 24 September at 6pm in the Library of the Chaplaincy.


If you are interested and haven't registered please let Elizabeth Drummond Young know on elizdrummondyoung@gmail.com so that we can hold a waiting list and gauge interest in another course.

How authoritative is Catholic Social Teaching?

I've noticed an interesting exchange of views online recently concerning the authority of Catholic Social Teaching.

John Zmirak in an article 'The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching' (link) claims that the body of Catholic Social Teaching is neither absolutely binding (in a way that theological dogmas might be) nor absolutely useless:


'A third way is to see Catholic social teaching not as analogous to Eucharistic doctrine and Marian dogmas, but as something much more akin to the Catholic literary tradition – a treasure trove of often-brilliant insights and deep investigations into the best ways for men to live which claims our respectful attention.

'We could quote a papal encyclical where it is apropos as we might a piercing insight from Dante or Walker Percy, aware that when popes spoke on economics and politics, they claimed no divine authority, but instead addressed key implications of natural law as best as their intellects and advisors advised them.'

This provoked a reply from Tom Hoopes (link) who distinguishes between principles and their application:

'The Church is a human institution with a divine guide. The principles provided by the guide are strong and unfailing. The Church’s application of them is human and imperfect. But all things considered, even the prudential application the Church has made of its timeless principles has been a testament to the reliability of the magisterium.'

I'll leave you to read both articles if you're interested. Here's what occurred to me when reading them.

There are complex and difficult questions about the nature of the Church's claim to authority in general, let alone as regards social teaching. To settle these absolutely would be difficult, but I think a fair way of setting out the position is that the Church clearly claims that it has some divine authority to teach truths that we are obliged to accept, whilst it does not claim that everything said by every Catholic is true! That clearly leaves a lot of discussion about where in that very broad space particular teachings actually lie, but both Zmirak and Hoopes' positions have an initial plausibility: not everything said (eg) by every Pope is necessarily binding (even though it may be very helpful to reflect on); but it would be odd if a developed body of teaching such as that of Catholic Social Teaching lacked all divine authority. (In the latter case, why should we put more weight on considering, say, Papal Encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum (link) than any (non-Catholic) economist or social theorist?)

Hoopes is certainly correct to point out a difference between principles and application. For example, Aquinas says (Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae q94 a4 (link)):

'The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all.'

In rough terms, principles of action are necessarily true whilst their application is less certain. We might also add that our knowledge of principles might deepen over the years: just as (eg) the Church's understanding of Mary's purity deepened over the centuries, so our understanding of principles such as freedom or dignity has also deepened.

Much to think about here! But to draw together some key issues, it's worth considering:

1) What is the nature of the authority of Catholic Social Teaching? Is it merely helpful (in the way that reflecting on what a wise Catholic novelist such as Graham Greene writes is helpful without it being in any way binding)? Or does it contain some elements or aspects that are binding in a analogous way to those of (eg) beliefs about the Trinity?

2) Assuming there are some aspects that possess a particular authority, what are those aspects? Can they change?

3) Is Catholic Social Teaching a coherent, structured body of teaching or is it rather a rich pool of ideas to be imaginatively explored? (Perhaps I should drop the capitals! Catholic Social Teaching or Catholic social teaching?!)

As ever, comments from anyone -on the course or not- welcome!

Don't mention the R word...

It would take a braver man than I to tackle the issue of the Referendum head on. (In any case, since the course starts on 24 September, the key issue will have been resolved by then!) But both Archbishops have urged participation and Archbishop Cushley specifically mentions 'Catholic Social Teaching' in his message:

'I encourage you, in the light of Catholic social teaching, carefully to consider the issues and to do your civic duty on the day itself.' (Full statement from both Archbishops here.)

I suppose you could probably base an entire course on teasing out what such a reflection would involve. (Don't worry! I won't!!) But I'll make a couple of points as a way of introducing topics which will crop up over the ten weeks.

First, there is no expectation that reflection for a Catholic is any easier than for a non-Catholic: it's not as though the Church has a list of rules which can sort out the decision more quickly. Indeed, by highlighting a number of issues that might otherwise have escaped our notice, Archbishop Cushley in particular seems to be encouraging a deeper and more complex reflection on how to vote.

 'Urged by the love of Christ, we are called, to be citizens who contribute positively to the common good and who strive always to consider others and their good before our own.  We are called to promote peace, integral human development and authentic human rights, and to have a special care for the poorest and the weakest in society.'

How we reflect on practical action is primarily a matter of practical wisdom (Greek: phronesis; Latin: prudentia). We'll look at this more closely on the course, but Aristotle's understanding of practical wisdom (which has been an important basis for Catholic thinking in this area) is this:

'So far from offering a decision procedure, Aristotle insists that this is something that no ethical theory can do. His theory elucidates the nature of virtue, but what must be done on any particular occasion by a virtuous agent depends on the circumstances, and these vary so much from one occasion to another that there is no possibility of stating a series of rules, however complicated, that collectively solve every practical problem. This feature of ethical theory is not unique; Aristotle thinks it applies to many crafts, such as medicine and navigation (1104a7–10).' (Extract from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Aristotle's Ethics here.)

Secondly, there are nevertheless key values or principles that Catholic reflection on human life has identified as potentially relevant in such decision making. (Archbishop Cushley mentions a few in the extract above: the common good, the promotion of peace etc.) What these may be and where they come from is again something we'll deal with in the course, but a list of important themes might include:


Life and Dignity of the Human Person
Call to Family, Community, and Participation
Rights and Responsibilities
Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
Solidarity
Care for God's Creation

(I've taken these from the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops here.)

As I said, these are only a couple of the points that one might take from the Archbishops' messages. But I'll leave you with two questions to mull over:

1) How do we expect wise people (or ourselves when acting wisely!) to deliberate on political questions such as this?
2) What do you think about the themes identified by Archbishop Cushley? (Has he included anything you'd leave out? Excluded anything you'd have put in? How helpful is his advice?)

Please feel free to use the comments' box to discuss this or anything else that strikes you as relevant! (And please don't feel you have to be signed up on the course to do this. All contributions are welcome!)

Welcome!

Welcome to the new blog from the Albertus Institute, Scotland! You can learn all about the blog and the Institute here.

As you'll see from that link, the initial purpose of the blog is to supplement the material in our course, Thinking through Catholic Social Teaching (which commences on 24 September 2014 and runs for 10 weeks in Edinburgh. Online registration for the course is available now here). Both before and during that course, I -and other members of the Institute- will be posting about the central themes in the course, and encouraging discussion in the comment boxes.

I'm happy to admit both the blog and the course are a bit of a new venture for us -so I'm viewing both as a collaborative effort to explore the Church's teaching in this area rather than just an opportunity for me to lecture you. All contributions are therefore very welcome!

As is obvious, this blog is 'under construction'. So please watch this space... (I'll be aiming to post new material at least weekly from now on until the end of the course.)


Stephen Watt
Tutor, Thinking through Catholic Social Teaching