Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: final post

                                                              Christ Pantocrator*

This will be the final post of the four week course on Anthony Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. You are of course very welcome to add comments in the boxes at any time.

In the other posts this week, I've covered general issues such as Esolen's methodology and the question of the depth and detail of his vision of societies. In this final post, I want to say a little about a striking feature of Leo's social teaching which Esolen constantly emphasizes: the importance of the 'little platoons' or societies/associations which are intermediate between the State and the individual.

If there's one thing that characterises Catholic social teaching -and, even if not in all places, this is one place where Catholic social teaching has much in common with 'social conservatism'- it is an emphasis on the centrality of the family and civil society to human nature. Unlike some readings of liberal political philosophy, where individuals enter into social groupings, especially the State, by choice, Catholic social teaching emphasizes the existence of groups such as the family which exist prior to the State and, in many ways, prior to our individuality, let alone our individual choice. This is of course most clearly seen in the family: children find themselves within a family, owing duties and having rights with respect to other people that have not been freely adopted and which as much create a person as are create by it. Beyond the family, other associations (such as the neighbourhood or interest groups) also are not exactly freely chosen: again, there is an element of finding oneself already embedded in those little platoons rather than creating them ab initio.

Whatever else may be said about neuralgic issues such as divorce and same sex marriage, this observation helps to throw light on why these are taken so seriously by Catholics in a way that seems often incomprehensible to outsiders. For the classic liberal, the starting point is the individual and his or her freely chosen associations: the State is there to serve and facilitate those individual choices. For Catholicism, whatever truth there is in that liberal vision (and I would accept that there is much truth in it) it leaves out other key elements, among which, from the perspective of social teaching, the two most important are our relationship to God and his Church, and our relationship to our families. Just as individual rights are fundamental to liberalism, the rights of the biological family are a fundamental part of Catholic social thought. Putting aside our relationship to God for the moment (and Esolen's work stands as a reproach to the thought that such as secularised attitude can ever be an adequate starting point for social thinking), for Leo's social teaching, the family is one of the basic building blocks of society (indeed, in many ways, the building block) and any changes in it (even if possible) would require as much serious attention as attenpts to remake individual human beings. It is this importance of the family -quite apart from what reflection on that importance might bring- which makes recent changes in marriage law and practice so serious an issue for Catholic social teaching, a seriousness which is often completely baffling to non-Catholics.

That's it as far as the formal elements of the course are concerned! Thank you to all those who have followed along over the last weeks. For anyone coming to this course later on, I hope you find some of these posts useful. But, of course, the main thing I'd say is: make sure you've read Anthony Esolen's book! (Here.)



[Details of image here.]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 12

This is the second in the final week's posts which aim to present a critical discussion of the book as a whole. In yesterday's post, I discussed Esolen's methodology. In today's post, I want to discuss some of the content of that vision of a Catholic society I suggested he was aiming to pass on.

A striking feature of Esolen's presentation has been his emphasis on aesthetics: not only has he continually engaged with the artistic in most of the chapters, but he has frequently focused on images. Indeed, the whole work could be perhaps be described as trying to show the integritas, consonantia and claritas (wholeness, harmony, radiance: the three aspects of beauty according to Aquinas) of a Catholic society. Rockwell's images above are but one example of the paintings considered by Esolen.

Now although in the post (post 4) I considered Esolen's remarks on Rockwell I admitted I disliked the paintings intensely, Esolen has a point in claiming that they do capture something right: roughly, the tenderness of young not-quite-yet-sexual love between the sexes. You might, if you prefer and have a stronger stomach than mine, consider Donny Osmond's Puppy Love as a further popular example of this theme:

Whatever is wrong with these artworks (and I'll go on to discuss that) their popular appeal on the theme of innocent love ought to give us some pause for thought. Esolen praises the way that Rockwell's images gesture to a life beyond the immediate: the children are situated in a social world of small town America; they are situated in the natural world accompanied by other species etc etc. But there is also a completeness: the children themselves- or at least the adult selves they gesture towards- also form a complete world between them, the world of the primary society which is the family.

A lot of Esolen's images have this completeness. In the final chapter, his imagining of a community at peace with itself at Mass as the perfect society is the paradigm of this completeness. The problem for actually existing societies -whether these are marriages, businesses or States- is that this degree of completeness seems impossible. Whether it is the bickering of even a happy marriage or the political antagonisms of the nation state, incompleteness and strife seem hardwired into actually existing societies. Moreover, it might be claimed, such an eristic atmosphere is necessary. Returning to the Rockwell images, whatever else might be said about them, they seem to fit Roland Barthes' category of readerly texts which have a closed, single message, rather than the more open writerly texts which invite numerous different interpretations through their incompleteness. Just as Rockwell's images are aesthetically inadequate because of their straightforwardness and (relative) hermetic completeness, so Esolen's images of perfect societies are politically inadequate because of their ignoring of complexity and indeed disharmony as necessary ingredients of modern (and indeed ideal) social life.

What might be said on behalf of Esolen in response to these criticisms? First, Esolen is not committed to the aesthetic defence of Rockwell: it is perhaps precisely in the lack of depth and complexity that the American Protestant/secular view of society is lacking. Indeed, once you take God and the community gathered round the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass out of society that it becomes trite and ultimately unrealistic. Something like Rockwell's view of small town American life is a fantasy (and not in the end even a terribly inviting fantasy). Something like Dante's Divine Comedy (about which Esolen has also written) is, whilst imaginative, both complex and deep. It is that sort of deep image that Esolen is claiming Leo XIII is presenting in his writings rather than the superficial image of Rockwell.

Secondly, there is the role of the coherent ideal even in the midst of disharmony and complexity. Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching is a relatively short book and it is an introduction to Leo's writings. (And Leo's writings themselves might be seen only an introduction to the full body of Catholic thought in this area.) But by presenting a relatively short, focused work which itself presents merely the sketch of an ideal, we are better able to orient ourselves when it comes to the nitty gritty of social life and politics. When all is in flux, a simplified, clear ideal may be of more use that a detailed, realistic representation. The London Underground map, for example, by simplifying and abstracting, is much more useful as a guide than a more realistic map of the rail network would be:

[There'll be a final post this week on Friday 18 September 2015!]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 11

                                                                         Pope Leo XIII

We've now completed the systematic three week run through of Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching chapter by chapter. For the remainder of this fourth and final week of the course, I intend to add some general posts which critically engage with the book as a whole.

In the first of these general posts, I'd like to focus on the issue of methodology. It's a frequent problem in book reviews that the reviewer complains that the book under discussion is not the book that the reviewer himself would have written. Esolen's book isn't and cannot be the final word on Catholic social teaching. But what are the specifics of his book and what might be said critically about the approach he has taken?

The most obvious thing to note is that it is a book solely about Leo XIII's teaching. Whatever else might be said about this, it does mean that, as a text on Catholic social teaching simpliciter, it is incomplete: much has been written by Popes and others since then. So one book this is not is the book that shows how contemporary magisterial teaching fits in with Leo's. Although there is, in principle, nothing wrong with a book that focuses solely on one Pope's understanding of Catholic social teaching, if it is intended to be a book that is aimed at a general audience rather than an academic one specialising in nineteenth century thought, the choice of this focus does require some explanation and even justification.

The first thing to say is that Esolen's book presents a vision more than an argument. He stresses the coherence (and one might add beauty) of Leo's view, but he does not engage in a detailed, philosophical defence of either its content or of its methodology. What you should make of that is a tricky question. I have no doubt that at least part of Esolen's aim is persuasive: he wants to persuade his readers that Leo's vision is right and that those who either reject Catholic social teaching in toto or reject Leo's/Esolen's version of it are wrong. Whether that persuasion is best accomplished by presenting your case as coherently as possible so that the sheer strikingness of the vision convinces or whether it is better to enter into detailed argument is another matter. Certainly, Esolen's approach is one way to convince people whether or not it is the most effective.

But even noting that Esolen's aim is to produce a persuasive vision of the whole does not directly explain why it has to be Leo's. Why couldn't it (eg) be John Paul II's or even contemporary Catholic social teaching as it now stands? I have no doubt that it could be: these are books that Esolen simply hasn't written rather than books that could not be written. The advantages of taking Leo's vision as a focus, however, bring me on to my second point: Leo stands at a crucial point between modernity and tradition in Catholicism and it is this point that Esolen is implicitly at least addressing in the book.

As I've mentioned before, Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum is often taken as the beginning of a new phase in Catholic teaching: the creation of a separate body of thought called Catholic Social Teaching. Esolen's aim is undoubtedly to undermine this sense of a chasm between the old and the new here by showing that Leo is firmly rooted in the past: if Leo founded Catholic social teaching, he did so in full continuity with past Catholic teaching. As well as the 'creation' of social teaching, Leo XIII is also famous for the revival of Thomism in his Encyclical Aeterni Patris (description here) and the social teaching he puts forward is what one would expect from someone soaked in the Aristotelianism of Thomist political and moral philosophy. Moreover, by being rooted in that Thomism, the social teaching falls into the general framework of Thomist discussions of beatitudo (human flourishing) and, in particular, of the relationship between our supernatural destiny with God and the goods of our natural life here on earth. If Leo is the founder of Catholic social teaching, then it is a teaching that is not separated from the philosophical and theological past, nor a teaching which separates human social life from our lives after death with God, nor one that ignores the importance of the liturgical life of the Church.

I'll go on to say something more tomorrow (16 September 2015) about some of the detailed content of Leo XIII's vision of human social life.

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 10

Week 4

Welcome to the final week of the course where we read through Anthony Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. If this is the first time you've joined us, please see this post which should navigate you through the course. After today's post -where I'll simply summarise the final chapter of the book- I'll post again this week to discuss critically some overall aspects of Esolen's work. Please feel free to comment on any issue you wish to tackle in the comment boxes.

My summary:

Esolen's final chapter can be summarised by his final words:

I know where a truly Catholic social order is to be found. It is found in a Church... (p186)

He does go on to say more about precisely what sort of Church this would be (full to bursting with repentant sinners; full of the faithful focused on God rather than themselves; where younger children are taken care of by the older children etc etc). But it is a Church and indeed the Church which embodies the completion of the social nature of human beings: the Church, gathered round the Eucharist, is the perfect society.

The central document for this chapter is perhaps Mirae Caritatis [here]. This Encyclical emphasises the centrality of the Eucharist to the good social life:

History bears witness that the virtues of the Christian life have flourished best wherever and whenever the frequent reception of the Eucharist has most prevailed.


My critical discussion:

As I've said above, I'll say more about this final chapter and indeed the whole book in further posts this week. For the moment, note the emphasis on two themes that Esolen is clearly identifying as central to the book and to the social teaching of Leo XIII. First, that a focus on God is central to good social life. Secondly, that a focus on the Church, and especially the Eucharist, is central to the God centred life.

I've suggested earlier that much of Esolen's book can be seen as an attempt to reintegrate Catholic social teaching into the main body of the Church traditional teaching. Here, we can see the heart of this: the integration of social concern into the heart of what might be seen as a traditionalist focus, the Liturgy of the Mass.

[I'll post tomorrow (15/9/15) further critical discussion of the book as a whole.]

[Details of image here.]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 9

                                              Decoration Day St Thomas, Ontario (1959)*


Week 3: Chapter 8

Key points:

• Leo XIII's vision of a good social order is one based primarily on the family and the 'small platoons' of civil society
• The state has a role in preserving these societies, but must be careful not to undermine them
• The modern Western state is tending to undermine these societies

My synopsis:

This chapter really develops the themes of the previous one: the natural human need for society is primarily satisfied through those associations or societies with a human face: the family, the guild, or the workplace where there is a genuine friendship between employees and employer. Perhaps a quote best expresses this:

Leo's ideal is not State control, with individuals as wardens, but a society built up of societies: a culture truly social, based on human friendships and family ties and alliances. (p.164)


My critical discussion:

Esolen starts the chapter not with an artistic reference this time, but to a vignette from his childhood: a memory of Memorial or Decoration Day. There isn't an exact equivalent in Scotland for this North American practice (see here for details) but it is a near relative of Remembrance Sunday, albeit with an addition of a more personal, intimate tone given by the practice of decorating relatives graves.

The essential point here is that Decoration Day, at least as practised in Esolen's childhood, involved both public elements and also an intimacy. As well as the public acts of commemoration, this was also a 'family' space where genuine emotion for specific individuals, living and dead, could exist.

Esolen in this chapter says rather more perhaps about what the State shouldn't be than what it should be. In this, he is echoing a frequent complaint that the modern state is too powerful: it has taken upon itself functions that rightly belong to other, smaller societies such as the family. The problem with this encroachment is that it depersonalises society: instead of the existence of social spaces which foster friendship, the State replaces them with an impersonal bureaucracy which is not only depersonalising, but inefficient.

From a European viewpoint, it might be wondered whether Esolen says enough about the positive role of the State. The centralisation of State power is a feature of European life since (at least) the Late Middle Ages where the establishment of a strong national monarchy was at least in part justified on the grounds of establishing the rule of law over local, powerful individuals. (A cynic might well point out that the Mafia after all is a small platoon with a human face.) Whatever details remain to be worked out here, however, the general picture within that vignette of Decoration Day is an organic relationship between Church ( the town's ceremonials involve both Protestant and Catholic clergy), State (the commemoration of national sacrifice by legally appointed civil representatives against the background of a national (American) culture), 'guilds' (the associations of civil society such as the American Legion) and the family. It's also worth stressing the individual here, or at least that individual human being, Anthony Esolen. It is his memory of the events that is being relayed here: it is a public, impersonal ritual which has become, through the multiple attachments of the 'small platoons', something meaningful for him.


Questions:

• There is a nostalgic element to Esolen's vision. Does this undermine his argument? 
• Is the modern State (in the UK or in your own country) too powerful? 
• Is there something oppressive about living in a 'small platoon'? (The synopsis of Iain Crichton Smith's 'The Red Door' captures this thought here.) 

*[Details of image: Licensed under Creative Commons from Elgin County Archives. Full details here.]

[That was the last post for this week! I'll be posting on the final chapter (with critical reflection on the book as a whole) starting from 14 September 2015.]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 8

Week 3: chapters 6-8.

We turn to chapter 7, 'Work'.

(If you've just joined us, have a look at this post for orientation...)

Key point:

• Work should be a fully human relationship where employer and employee are bound by friendship rather than simply power and money.

My synopsis:

Modern work dehumanises us. It encourages us to luxury and to use others simply as resources. On the other hand, work allows us to be fully human in serving and being served by our fellow man. As in all things, to ignore God in work is to cut away the foundation of our humanity.

My critical discussion:

Again, Esolen starts the chapter with a picture, Murillo's painting of the Holy Family (above), The space is full of 'business', but it is a business conducted in the sight and awareness of God, and between people who have a genuine affection and relationship with each other.

Esolen in this chapter turns to paradigmatic aspects of Catholic social teaching as it is known in the modern world: Leo's Rerum Novarum and the nature of work and the State. The very fact that it is only now, right near the end of the book, that these things emerge, is a sign that Esolen regards much of the presentation of Catholic social teaching as flawed. Rerum Novarum is not itself a new thing, but simply an application of existing Catholic principles. Wealth, poverty and work are not things which can be treated in isolation from our wider human nature, but have to be understood against an understanding of our natural and supernatural ends. The family, as the first society for human beings, helps us understand what it is to have a fully human relationship with others. Great art and the Western tradition of thought help us understand and apply abstract principles in concrete ways.

Leo's Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, makes much of the Guild: that body of workers who come together in self managing 'unions' and who establish a culture of mutual respect between master and worker. In essence, they are a way of bridging the gap between the affection of a family and the public, utilitarian space of work. The nearest equivalent in modern times is the profession (eg that of law). But even these are succumbing to the pressures of the market and being replaced by a more impersonal, temporary set of relationships between competitors.

Questions:

• What are the features of a successful working life?
• Is it possible to be idle throughout one's entire life and be happy?
• Is there a way of reconciling the innovation and cost reduction brought about by a competitive market with a 'family like' atmosphere in a workplace? 
• Is anything like a 'family' atmosphere in a workplace really desirable? Doesn't it lead to an absorption of private life by the employer?

[Details of image: Murillo, Holy Family with Little Bird. Full details here.]


[Back tomorrow (9/9/15) with the final post this week on chapter 8, 'The State'.]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 7

Week 3: chapters 6-8


For new readers:

We are now at the beginning of the third week of this four week course. The first post of the course was here.

If you have been following the posts up till now, well done and I'll say more about this week's work below! For anyone who has just arrived on the blog, welcome! There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't join in now. In essence, this course is just me blogging through Anthony Esolen's book. The posts therefore can be read at any time as prompts to further thought about this work: there is absolutely no reason why this has to be restricted to the period of the four weeks ended 21 September 2015. However, if you are reading this during the four week period, I have left the final week (beginning on 14 September 2015) relatively free of reading the book (we'll only be looking at one chapter in that week) with a few to encouraging some critical reflection on the book as a whole, As it is a relatively short book, there is plenty of time to get the book, read it, and contribute to the comments box in the remaining period of the course. (A Kindle version of the book is available here.)

My synopsis of the course up till now:

In the first five chapters of the book, Esolen has concentrated (following Leo XIII) on the key structures of human societies rather than the neuralgic issues which are often taken to be the heart of Catholic social teaching. He methodology is to to a) restrict himself to Leo XIII writings; b) to integrate this social teaching with the entirety of Catholic teaching rather than to view the social teaching as something separate from (say) teaching on sexual morality or the nature of God; c) to view the teaching through a sensibility enriched with the classical tradition of Western art, thought and philosophy.

In previous chapters, Esolen has focused on the family and the associations of 'civil society': those associations which exist in the space between the State and the family. He does this to reflect a key feature of Leo's teaching: that human nature's fulfilment in associating with other human beings is not done primarily through the State. Moreover, the State exists to reinforce those naturally existing associations rather than to create them from scratch. (Modern reworkings of family life to include divorce and same sex marriage are clearly in Esolen's (and Leo's) sights here.)

My synopsis of chapter 6: The Church as Society:

Key point:

• The Church is not so much just one other society that human beings may or may not belong to, but the perfect society which is a model for all others.

Modern understandings of social life tend to privilege the political State as a model. Among early modern thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke, the social contract suggests a democratic basis for authority: atomistic indviduals come together in a social contract to form a society -the State. Instead, taking the Church as the paradigm of Society, the model of good human relationships becomes (eg) one which rests on God-given authority (and not the consent of individuals) and one focused on our relationship with God (rather than, as in Hobbes, our physical safety). Democracy can be a valuable part of human life, but, for Leo and Esolen, 'the Church [is] the standard by which we judge democracy' (p.131) rather than vice versa.

My critical discussion of the chapter:

Esolen's book is undoubtedly counter cultural, at least in the sense that it champions some unfashionable social positions. We've already looked in previous chapters at the value of liberty which Esolen has critiqued in its modern form as mere licence and whim. He is now critiquing the value of democracy which again tends to be one of the assumed pillars of modernity: good government is, at the least, democratic. 

If democracy is one of the principles of a good society, the Catholic Church is going to be found wanting! (And indeed, Esolen makes the point that it is precisely in this area that much modern criticism of the Church is focused.) If on the other hand, there are more important principles of society than democracy (and in fact, if democracy is only justifiable to the extent that it serves those more ultimate principles) then it becomes more plausible to argue that the Church is the standard by which other societies are judged than vice versa.

This is probably going to be one of the key areas for assessing your reaction to Esolen and Leo. If you think that democracy is a simple, obvious good, then you are going to find it hard to accept a view of social teaching which stresses the value of hierarchy and authority over democracy. On the other hand, Esolen is certainly not rejecting democracy as a good in its place. To claim that the Church is a model of human association is not to suggest that its structures are simply reproducible in other areas (such as that of the State or even the family). Whatever we may learn from the Church as a model of how to relate to other human beings cannot simply be reproduced mechanically in our family or political life: Church and State are not identical. 

As usual, Esolen refers constantly to Leo XIII's writings. Perhaps the key one for this chapter is Testem Benevolentiae (on 'Americanism'): here.

Questions: (feel free to respond to these or any others in the comments box!):

• Should all human societies (family, Church, State, businesses) be democratic? Why?
• Given scandals such as child abuse, can the Church be considered as a model for human relationships?
• What is the role of authority in human relationships? Is it 'God given'? (And what might that mean?)

[I'll post tomorrow (8/09/15) on chapter 7!]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 6

"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others." Tocqueville: Democracy in America here

We continue week 2's sessions with the final chapter in this section: 'Social life'.

Key points:

• Small associations are a key element in the flourishing human life.
• The existence of such associations, both in the Church and in wider society has been under attack in the modern West.

My summary:

Leo emphasises the importance of what is often described as 'civil society': that type of association or society which is intermediate between the State and the family. In particular in this chapter, Esolen emphasises those associations ('pious societies' such as the Legion of Mary (p. 97) which both focus on the supernatural end of human beings but also on their natural end through friendship and mutual support. It is these associations which have often withered away in modernity, either as a result of deliberate targeting or by social changes.

My critical discussion:

Esolen starts the chapter with a discussion of Tocqueville's identification of small associations as a noticeable strength of nineteenth century US life:

"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others." Tocqueville: Democracy in America here

It is certainly true that much Catholic social teaching focuses on this level of social engagement: together with an emphasis on the family, this emphasis on the 'little platoons' ( a phrase from Edmund Burke) is in stark opposition to either individualism or an emphasis on the State. (As such, many of its themes have been taken up in Phillip Blond's Red Toryism or Maurice Glasman's Blue Labour. ) These societies have a natural right to exist which is not delegated to them by the State or even simply by the individual: they are more the basis for individuality and the State rather than the effects of them.

There is, once again, a methodological point to be made here about Esolen: by starting the chapter with a discussion of Tocqueville, he locates Catholic social teaching in history, in particular in the tradition of Western political philosophy and of the canon of Great Books.

Although Esolen, as usual, refers to a number of Leo XIII's documents in this chapter, perhaps the most relevant to read is Quod Apostolici Muneris. 

Questions:

• Changes in the family and in the 'little platoons' of civil society are particularly noticeable in modern societies. Should we see these changes as attacks on their existence or simply as changes, either neutral or even benign?
• Life in Catholic parishes is, according to Esolen, no longer dominated by these 'muscles' of Catholic life (p.97). Is that true? Is it regrettable?

[This is the final post for week 2. Join me on 7 September for the posts on week 3, starting with chapter 6: The Church as Society.]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching: post 5

                                                                    Sigrid Undset


Week 2: 

We continue week 2 of the course on Anthony Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching by looking at chapter 4 on 'The Family'.

My synopsis:

• The family is the fundamental society: it is both a society itself and the foundation for other societies such as the State.
• The family is the space within which individuals are formed who have an understanding of their natural end and, fundamentally, of their supernatural end as oriented towards God.

My critical discussion:

Esolen starts this chapter again with a discussion of a work of art: the novels of Sigrid Undset and, in particular, her triology, Kristin Lavransdatter. (I've made this point before, but it's worth stressing again Esolen's methodology here. He constantly refers to art and particularly canonical works of the Western tradition: for him, the idea of Catholic social teaching appeals to a prudentia -the virtue of practical wisdom formed in part by the Western classical tradition.) Undset's novel focuses on a household, indeed, a patriarchal household of the Scandinavian Middle Ages. By seeing the concrete nature of such a society and its goodness, Esolen (and Undset) hope to restore the vision of a natural pattern of human existence as good, in opposition to the theoretical modern opposition to patriarchy and the family. (Esolen doesn't make this point, but Undset herself lived through a divorce, war and the death of her oldest child. If she has a vision of the 'good family' it is not through a naive ignorance of its problems.) 

This chapter continues on from the previous one on marriage. In essence, it repeats and extends the message of the centrality of the family to human social life, its naturalness as a society (rather than its existence as a voluntary contract), and the existence of attacks on it by secularised modernity.

Questions:

 

• Esolen constantly argues that the family helps the individual to see herself 'oriented beyond time, to God' by seeing an loving its origins (parents, grandparents) and its future (children, grandchildren). Does that mean that those of us who don't have the experience of knowing our parents (or having children) are harmed in some way?
• Esolen (and Leo) emphasises the importance of the father's role in leading the family. Since this is obviously a 'patriarchal' thought. do we need to bother reading on?
• If Catholicism is based on the traditional family, isn't that precisely why it's going to fail in future years?

Works of Leo referred to in chapter:

From now on, I won't be listing the references to Leo's works on the individual blogposts. The full set of documents referred to by Esolen are listed here. Perhaps the two most important writings for this chapter are Arcanum divinae (Vat. Eng. version here), and Rerum Novarum [Vat. Eng. version here.] The latter in particular is often seen as the foundation stone of Catholic social teaching. It would be an interesting exercise to read the document focusing instead on some of the more countercultural sections on the nature of the family. (Eg: sections 13 and 14.)

[Next post -the final one of  week 2- will be tomorrow 1 September 2015.]