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!