Reflections on last night's session (22 October)

Once more, many thanks for braving the increasingly dark evenings and for all the contributions to the discussions!

As I said, I think in many ways consideration of civil society (and the family) is one of the most important elements of Catholic social teaching: we have a tendency in the modern world to think solely in terms of the State and individuals; and even when we think of other associations, we tend to regard them as creations of the State rather than having a separate and independent source of authority for their existence (in broad terms, that of human nature).

A few specific points that occurred to me:

----------------------------------------------------------
a) The issue of subsidiarity and the exercise of authority in the Church came up: roughly, given the emphasis on the transfer of power down to the lowest level, why isn't power in the Church transferred downwards?

I set this question aside in the session simply because I didn't want to refocus the discussion from the general principle of subsidiarity in civil society to a specific (and different) case. However, we will have a chance to return to it if people want, both in the session on the State (which will include some consideration of the Church) and in the final 'open' session where we can pick up any topic that is of interest. For the moment, I suppose all I would say is that there seem to me to be a number of relevant considerations here:

i) First, it's entirely possible that the Church in some areas (and certainly some specific parishes in some places) doesn't always get it right! It would be highly implausible to argue that it does (and certainly it's no part of Catholic doctrine that it does).

ii) Secondly, there is the issue of the appropriate level to which power and authority is passed: as discussed, subsidiarity isn't the principle that authority is passed down to the lowest level regardless of appropriateness: some authority is appropriately exercised at higher, central levels. (And that of course leads to consideration of what appropriateness involves in specific cases.)

iii) Thirdly, unlike the State (which is legitimized by the authority of the people -ie authority proceeds (roughly) upwards)- the Church 's hierarchy possesses authority directly from God. (That certainly doesn't mean that power can't be passed downwards, but it does mean that, for at least some aspects of the hierarchy's exercise of authority, unlike that of the people in the case of civil power, there is no right to that authority.)

Contrast:

Civil authority:

1) Suarez: Book III, ch2, Defensio fidei Catholicae: [link here]

For, first, the supreme civil power viewed in itself, is indeed given directly by God to men gathered into a perfect political community, not in truth in consequence of any peculiar and quasi-positive institution, or by gift altogether distinct from the production of such nature, but through the natural consequence by the force of the first creation of it, and thus by the force of such gift this power is not in one person, nor in a peculiar congregation of many, but in the whole perfect people or body of the community. 

[...]

From these considerations finally it is concluded that no king or monarch has or has had (according to ordinary law) directly from God or from divine institution a political principality, but by the medium of human will and institution. This is the distinguished axiom of theology, not for derision, as the king proposed, but in truth, because rightly understood it is most true and especially necessary for understanding the purposes and limits of civil power.

2) Compendium Of Social Doctrine, 395 [link here]

 The subject of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who have sovereignty. In various forms, this people transfers the exercise of sovereignty to those whom it freely elects as its representatives, but it preserves the prerogative to assert this sovereignty in evaluating the work of those charged with governing and also in replacing them when they do not fulfil their functions satisfactorily. Although this right is operative in every State and in every kind of political regime, a democratic form of government, due to its procedures for verification, allows and guarantees its fullest application.


Ecclesial authority:

Catechism, 880-2: [link here]


When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

--------------------------------------------------------

b) After the session I was asked the very good question as to whether there was any real evidence that the associations of civil society were actually under threat in modernity. (So, eg, I mentioned that it was more and more difficult to get membership of political parties or the scouts.)

This strikes me as a good point because it does remind us that we need to separate out what is essential to Catholic social teaching as what is merely a (plausible) application of it. It is essential to Catholic social teaching that civil society flourishes: if human beings are not able to form the sort of intermediate associations that we discussed, the full flourishing of their nature is impaired. But while it is essential to the teaching that civil society should continue and be facilitated, it certainly isn't essential to the teaching that (in any particular society or age) this or that civil society is actually under threat. For example, although books such as Putnam's Bowling Alone (see previous post) do seem to me to provide convincing evidence that there is a problem here in the West, it may well be that what we are seeing is simply a change in the nature of civil society (perhaps from participation in bowling clubs to participation in (say) online gaming). There's no magic solution to this other than the exercise of practical wisdom (prudentia): reasonable disagreement about the nature of social problems and the solution to them is not eradicated by the existence of Catholic social teaching. Catholics should be concerned about the survival of civil society. But precisely how that concern should be manifested on any particular occasion is not something that can be revealed by that teaching: there we simply have to do our best to discern both problems and solutions.

I'll post in a few days with thoughts about the next session!